People pay for things they don’t need. You only need to look at a department store or a car dealership (or an Amazon.com receipt) to know how true this is. Cost is often irrelevant in our calculations. We have to have what we have to have. Governments, being largely controlled by people, are no different.
The city of Phoenix’s initial $1.4 billion expenditure for the light rail is often and easily criticized as exactly this type of cost. Light rail makes the city cool, hip, modern — all the words that look so appealing on billboards and in magazines. It makes us more palatable to those of a certain cultural cache tastemakers to whom Portland or Seattle is the great modern city. It certainly can be useful to ASU students, who are among the system’s foremost users.
But was the expenditure worth it? Phoenix is possibly one of the worst cities for a light rail. It’s hot most of the year, so waiting for a train sounds particularly unappealing, especially to the people in business attire who are the ideal riders. Furthermore, Phoenix was built for car travel, and the sheer distance between points makes light rail less useful.
There’s a basic question of financial viability as well. As Forbes magazine’s Warren Meyer argues, the city could conceivably have purchased and paid for a Prius for every daily rider of the light rail, with the city’s projected annual loss on the system being used for gas. Even if those numbers aren’t perfect, isn’t it possible that there was a better way to invest in transportation in Arizona? Also the environmental benefits of light rail aren’t as clear-cut as some believe, as Randall O’Toole of the Cato Institute has written.
These intangible benefits are not always easily dismissed. It seems likely that light rail can help revitalize downtown communities.
The downtown upturn is not necessarily traceable to light rail, however. It’s true that a certain type of young middle-class American is flocking back to urban centers, as author and development guru Richard Florida and others have often noticed. But he discovered that community groups and local foundations, often operating without government aid, were the real drivers of urban redevelopment.
Phoenix’s growth often follows this model. Look at the city’s Adaptive Reuse program, which transforms old and abandoned buildings into modern eateries and businesses. The city gives guidance and expedited time frames, and the business owners pay the lion’s share of the costs. Though light rail is likely a perk to adaptive developers, this model doesn’t necessarily need it.
Even so, if light rail has indeed contributed to a richer, more welcoming downtown experience, one that draws residents, businesses, and tourism, isn’t it possible that the cost will actually turn out to be an investment, rather than a boondoggle? And isn’t infrastructure that facilitates economic growth, after all, one of the most legitimate exercises of the governmental purse?
The City of Phoenix, in a terrible economic climate, paid $1.4 billion and annoyed and inconvenienced countless businesses and millions of drivers for the sake of comparatively few light rail riders. This is part of the story, and deserves to be told.
But this is not the whole story.
Reach Will at wmunsil@asu.edu
