Holy rail: mass transit boondoggles.

• Author: Sullum, Jacob
• Position: Citings

ALTHOUGH THE drawbacks of rail-based mass transit are well-known enough to have inspired an episode of The Simpsons, local authorities' enthusiasm for laying track seems undimmed. As a new report from the Colorado-based Independence Institute explains, "the coalition of pork-lovers, auto-haters, and nostalgia buffs" that backs rail transit over more cost-effective alternatives is hard to beat, even if you have all the facts on your side.

In "Great Rail Disasters," economist Randal O'Toole (an adjunct scholar with the Reason Public Policy Institute, which co-published the study) meticulously lays out these facts, assessing the track record of rail transit in 23 urban areas based on 13 criteria, including ridership cost, congestion, energy, use, and safety. Among other things, he shows that advocates of rail projects routinely overestimate their popularity among commuters and underestimate their costs; that such projects "can cost 50 times as much to start as comparable bus transit"; that they typically make congestion worse instead of alleviating it for the auto haters, that result is intended); that "the average light-rail line consumes more energy per passenger mile" than cars do; and that "rails are more deadly than the alternatives in 15 out of 23 rail regions."

In short, O'Toole writes in his understated conclusion, "rail...