Trains, pains and remedies
I like trains. Boy, do I like trains.
I grew up in a house no more than a three-minute walk from a commuter station. I played with a Märklin train-set in my grandparents’ attic for hours on end. Commuter passes that cost something like $10-$15 a month for us kids allowed unrestricted access to commuter trains (and also buses). A couple of times I took the train Stockholm, about a 35 minute ride each way, twice in the same day. A good chunk of my military service dealt with rail transportation of troops. In college me and a train-enthusiast classmate did a paper on the marketing of the then-new X2000 highish-speed train that runs between Stockholm and Goteborg. I’ve spent vacations visiting and photographing old trains and train stations that once upon a time served mills and factories.
Not surprisingly, I rather like the idea of investing more in public transit, as seemingly just about every Massachusetts Democrat running for office is proposing. Even though I’m a conservative, I have no problem subsidizing passenger service: It’s not like I use streets and roads on a pay as you go basis, right? Plus, trains can add a bit of redundancy to the transit system, which is always good to have in case a tunnel ceiling collapses or a tunnel springs a massive leak.
But before we start laying tracks like it’s 1869, let us be honest about what trains can and cannot do.
Mass. Democrats are asking trains to do an awful lot: Stem population loss, make housing affordable, improve the environment, reduce sprawl, bring economic opportunity to towns left out of the super turbo charged economic boom that’s turning Boston into the world’s richest city (yes, dear reader, that’s a ladle of sarcasm, though some easily impressed people might think it isn’t) and other good things.
I’d like to remind my fellow train afficionados that all trains do is shuffle people and things back and forth, hopefully in a speedy, reliable, and safe manner.
The idea that a railroad (high-speed, light rail, whatever you favor) to a town like Fall River would open up a world of opportunity previously denied its citizens is silly. It is particularly silly considering that there are millions of people in America who traveled hundreds or thousands of miles, even crossed deserts and rivers to find work here. Whatever is holding the people of Fall River down, or back, the lack of a railroad it isn’t. Nor does the lack of train service explain why some ethnic groups in Fall River do pretty good on a household income basis, while some other groups do pretty bad.
That’s not to say a railroad won’t help Fall River. I think it would, and I think it should be looked at closely, but it will help the city primarily by bringing in higher-educated, higher-earning white-collar workers looking for cheap housing and a convenient commute. I don’t think a railroad would do much for the people who already live there.
Which brings us to affordable housing. If you, like me, think it’s an asset to have a commuter train station near your house, then you can hardly make the argument that railroads will make housing more affordable. A commuter train station will make surrounding real estate more desirable, thus more expensive. The same is true with regards to the size of the state’s population: If an expansion of railroads increases population, then housing will become more expensive, ceteris paribus. Of course, life is rarely ceteris paribus and housing could be made more affordable by making more land available to development, for example, by squeezing in tract developments in pricey but severely underdeveloped towns like Weston. But you can do that without spending billions of dollars on trains and railroads.
However, all I’ve done so far is caution Democrats not to deify trains and railroads beyond reason. Whatever trains can’t do, they remain darn good at quickly shuffling people from point A to point B. I’d rather spend 60 minutes a day and 70 bucks a month riding a train than fighting traffic jams every morning and every evening. Yet, if you ask me whether we should spend billions on trains, my answer for now is an emphatic no.
The reason is simple: The Big Dig. There’s no way I’m going to support another behemoth public infrastructure project in Massachusetts until the CA/Tastrophe has been sorted out and responsible parties held accountable.
