IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ejw/journl/v3y2006i3p551-602.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Economists Reach a Conclusion On Rail Transit?

Author

Listed:
  • Ted Balaker
  • Cecilia Joung Kim

Abstract

In the United States, the public debate over urban rail projects is complicated by the lack of agreement on goals. Supporters offer a wide variety of justifications to build and expand rail transit. If one focuses on the judgments of economists, the list of justifications shrinks considerably, but we are still left with a bundle of goals. Compared to other justifications, economists appear to be somewhat optimistic about rail transit’s impact on local economic development, but less optimistic about rail’s ability to achieve environmental improvement and serve the transit-dependent poor. Economists seem quite pessimistic about rail’s ability to achieve key transportation goals like reducing congestion. Economists often attribute rail’s political success to rent-seeking and romantic political factors. Of those economists who offer a big-picture view, there appears to be wide, though not unanimous, agreement that rail’s costs exceed its benefits. And it seems that almost all economists who write about rail agree that various demographic features, such as suburbanization, the declining influence of central business districts, and increasing wealth will make it increasingly difficult to design successful rail systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Ted Balaker & Cecilia Joung Kim, 2006. "Do Economists Reach a Conclusion On Rail Transit?," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 3(3), pages 551-602, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:3:y:2006:i:3:p:551-602
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econjwatch.org/file_download/116/2006-09-balakerkim-reach_concl.pdf?mimetype=pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://econjwatch.org/219
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glaeser, Edward L. & Kahn, Matthew E., 2004. "Sprawl and urban growth," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics,in: J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 56, pages 2481-2527 Elsevier.
    2. Adrian T. Moore & Ted Balaker, 2006. "Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Taxi Deregulation?," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 3(1), pages 109-132, January.
    3. Kain, John F, 1992. "The Use of Straw Men in the Economic Evaluation of Rail Transport Projects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(2), pages 487-493, May.
    4. Nelson, Peter & Bagliano, Andrew & Harrington, Winston & Safirova, Elena & Lipman, Abram, 2006. "Transit in Washington, D.C.: Current Benefits and Optimal Level of Provision," Discussion Papers dp-06-21, Resources For the Future.
    5. Klein, Daniel, 2004. "The People’s Romance: Why People Love Government (as much as they do)," Ratio Working Papers 31, The Ratio Institute, revised 11 May 2005.
    6. Giuliano, Genevieve & Small, Kenneth A., 1995. "Alternative Strategies for Coping with Traffic Congestion," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8nw1480v, University of California Transportation Center.
    7. Adam M. Zaretsky, 1994. "Riding the rails: a look at light rail transit," The Regional Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue Oct, pages 4-9.
    8. Fielding, Gordon J., 1995. "Congestion Pricing and the Future of Transit," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt0g332530, University of California Transportation Center.
    9. Nelson, Peter & Baglino, Andrew & Harrington, Winston & Safirova, Elena & Lipman, Abram, 2007. "Transit in Washington, DC: Current benefits and optimal level of provision," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 231-251, September.
    10. Bowes, David R. & Ihlanfeldt, Keith R., 2001. "Identifying the Impacts of Rail Transit Stations on Residential Property Values," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-25, July.
    11. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, pages 303-328.
    12. John Y. Campbell, 1996. "Consumption and the Stock Market: Interpreting International Experience," NBER Working Papers 5610, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Richard Voith, 1991. "Transportation, Sorting and House Values," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 117-137.
    14. Winston, Clifford & Maheshri, Vikram, 2007. "On the social desirability of urban rail transit systems," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 362-382, September.
    15. Kain, John F. & Liu, Zvi, 1999. "Secrets of success: assessing the large increases in transit ridership achieved by Houston and San Diego transit providers," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 33(7-8), pages 601-624.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:transb:v:100:y:2017:i:c:p:222-254 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Peter Abelson, 2010. "The High Cost of Taxi Regulation, with Special Reference to Sydney," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 17(2), pages 41-72.
    3. Stern, Charlotta & Klein, Daniel B., 2006. "Is There a Free-Market Economist in the House? The Policy Views of American Economic Association Members," Working Paper Series 6/2006, Stockholm University, Swedish Institute for Social Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    rail transit; transportation; economists;

    JEL classification:

    • R4 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics
    • D73 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
    • B0 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:3:y:2006:i:3:p:551-602. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jason Briggeman). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/edgmuus.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.