Cataclysm of Houston's Metrorail Expansion

The decision to rapidly extend the reach of Houston's successful MetroRail project will, in my opinion, lead to a reduction in the public value of the project — which will defeat the potential urban growth that might have resulted had the project been implemented more slowly.

The first (red) line was successful because it connects highly dense, walkable areas. Businesses respond positively to increasing walk-in traffic that the line brings, and more businesses will probably open along this central spine. But the new lines travel through less dense corridors, in general. Stops will occur in less dense, less walkable areas, and businesses will not feel the incentive to open near them. Lacking in local flavour, these semi-urban areas will generally not grow as a result of the lines.

Without mutual support from and to the local urban fabric, the lines will not gain adequate ridership.

Had the lines been implemented gradually, each line would have contributed to the uniqueness and accessibility of a local area. One at a time, each of the areas could have supported a minor mushrooming of businesses along the line. All together, the lines form a cataclysmic development, reducing relative land value gains in each area, and will probably not provide incentive for local areas to start any transit oriented development.

Reaching Maturity

We have expanded the reaches of our transportation system enough. Now it's time to increase the efficiency of this well-established transportation system. The next revolution in transportation will not be the frontier-dominating expansion, but rather the establishment of long-term management over what we've conquered.

In Defense of Connectivity

I will rarely advocate the construction of new roads — I'd have a long argument that there are enough inter-city roads in North America and Europe now to last us through all time. But the developing world is not so lucky.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa has put forward a plan to integrate Africa's hodgepodge of highways into a vast, transcontinental network spanning all but a few countries. It would require filling in a few gaps, and more than a few upgrades, but it could bring a new future to regional trade in Africa.

The legacy of colonial construction links the hinterlands with the ports, and nothing else. A higway network in Africa, like the interstates of the US, would provide mobility necessary for real economic growth.

Unfortunately I see a band of unrest stretching from DR Congo (which, incidentally, has fewer roads per person than any other African country — less paved road than the east-west length of the country) through CAR, Chad and Sudan that essentially isolates northwest and southeast Africa. Let's hope times change to make regional integration a possibility.

Opening Economies?

An interesting development, which probably will amount to little, is the East African Community's decision to upgrade and expand to a vast multi-national rail network. (A big shift is the conversion to standard gauge, from metre gauge which is common throughout the region. Necessary? On the "probably" side.)

It is most interesting because the economic and social centers of Kenya, Tanzania, and so forth are centralized along colonial railroads; Nairobi proudly admits its origins as a railway station.

If history dictates, an infrastructure upgrade of this sort could stimulate increased regional trade. The original system was built to give the British access to the Nile and to bring goods out of the colonies to the motherland. A regional network could promote growth within the region, as well as providing new infrastructure to greater portions of each country.

I'm skeptical as to whether it ever gets built. Rumour has it the plan is to build across the deserts of northern Kenya — not the most economically viable location. I remain excited all the same.

Totalitarian Legacy

Is there a peculiarity about democratically-questionable governments that raises the propensity for transit investment?

I'm no advocate of 'dictatorships'. But since Chavez came to power, Venezuela has seen the construction of three new light-rail systems, and a huge reinvestment in the national rail network for both freight and passengers. I'd argue that these moves vindicate some wrongs — the investments made domestically today will linger longer than policy points.

Iran has four metros under construction as we speak (so they say) and an extensive system in Tehran built since the Ayatollah came to power. We all know China, so of course transit development should come as no surprise. But how many in the western would consider transit a symbol of pride for a city?

I can imagine using this point against transit — that in the Western World, we have cars and don't need "cattle class" transportation. I suppose it comes down to a matter of preference. Cars will still be around after these regimes are gone.

But the infrastructure will remain, and nobody loses out when that's the case. It's one positive legacy each of these regimes will leave.