Popular naratives to describe the problems of the DC metro system:
1. Epitomizes America’s failure to invest enough in infrastructure.
2. Results from unwieldy government structure.
My view:
Metro is an example of over-investment and malinvestment in infrastructure.
Metro’s problem is less one of poor governance than one of lack of economic viability. The demand curve is too far below the cost curve.
What is new is that more of the people who live in DC and are inclined to do without a car are white and affluent rather than black and poor. I do not see why this strengthens the moral case for non-riders to subsidize riders, although I can see how it will strengthen the political ability to advocate for subsidies.
Any comment on this 2012 story on causes of Metro problems:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/26/metro-derailed-by-culture-of-complacence-incompete/?page=all
Is this story overblown or not?
It’s par for the course in black run cities. Whatever agency they set up a patronage network in, everything goes to shit.
As usual libertarians will blame government for problems of demographics.
No, we don’t.
Maybe the problem is that Metro is not capturing all the value that it creates. Just as a thought experiment, what if Metro took all the land around metro stations by eminent domain and then sold the land (over the years) to developers. For instance, East Falls Church metro is hardly developed around the station, though if it were, it would be very valuable. Ultimately that windfall will fall to the homeowners, not Metro, though the value was created by Metro.
Your contention is that some private owners are forgoing the profits from developing the land around metro stations all the while paying the increasing taxes on that land?
There are many wealthy people who live around DC and their wealth is not often from earning honest profits in open markets, but it seems odd that they would prefer vacant land around the stations.
More importantly, close by access to public transportation is historically associated with a long term trend toward more poverty around the station. See WHY DO THE POOR LIVE IN CITIES? THE ROLE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, Glaeser, Rappaport, Nov 2006.
Perhaps gentrification will finally reach out to these stations and prompt development that will then migrate into poorer communities as they age?
“We further look at rail expansions in 16 major cities. These 16 extensions were explicitly designed to connect central city areas to richer suburbs and not to improve access in poor areas. Here, the census tracts that gained access to public transportation became poorer.”
It is a long term investment necessary for greater growth and density but the benefits accrue largely to nearby property owners and future inhabitants so the costs and benefits are distributed differently. Now it may not reach the levels necessary to sustain it, but it is discongruous to argue for reduced zoning and increased densities without also making them possible. It both supports higher densities while making them less necessary, or more over a greater area.
What is discongruous? It is not clear what the last three uses of “it” refer to.
Man! I miss Northern VA,
Without identifiable “yield” or return we are not talking about investment in its economic context.
But, Arnold is on the button, best that can be done is increase the “demand” (use) and bend the costs curves down.
Privatize or contract out the car and equipment maintenance -to CSX or someone who can get the facilities away from the metro area and the rent-seekers.
Contract out track, signal, controls and station maintenance, preferably on a separate unit basis.
Increase demand by adding containerized “freight” and parcel services – Amazon style, fully automated. Also, provide “accompanied” freight on a “subscription” basis.
Create an Uber/Lyfte contact point (which can sub for smart phone) at each station. That’s a work-out item for Uber/Lyfte.
Pray a lot.
There will still be a gap but it will be narrowed.