Ever since the idea of constructing a light rail system in the Twin Cities was proposed in 1975, the various costs and benefits of light rail have been construed and obscured by a cloud of partisan politicing. The arguments against light rail usually bring up the inequality of having suburban tax dollars pay for a system that they will not use. They say that instead of reducing congestion, the real problem for residents of the region, light rail will divert funds away from building roads and increasing highway capacity, which, is further asserted is the only REAL way to improve traffic flow. Another popular argument is that building a light rail system is, at its root, an act of regional vanity. Instead of using bus systems, which are more flexible in their service and their structuring, Minneapolis, in an effort to demonstrate that it has "come into its own" as a nationally recognized large city, has capitulated to the pressures of keeping up with the Joneses.

While these arguments are intriguing and will be dealt with in due turn, another grrievence against the Hiawatha rail line bears a precursory treatment before moving onto the rest. This complaint is embodied by the graffitti pictured above: Building a light rail line is actually a way of gentrifying mass transit. This objection, more than the others, deserves careful consideration. It bring one of the fundamental environmental justice issue sinvolving sprawl to the forefront: the poor and the minority, who have suffered the greatest disenfranchisement from sprawl, ought to be, at least to some degree, remedied by the policies meant to counteract sprawl. And, at the outset, the reasons for the perpetuation of this view on light rail are not hard to understand: the Hiawatha Line runs from the Mall of America (a mammoth excersice in suburban upper-class values if ever there was one), through the international airport (a feature of the infrastructure seldom utilized by the impoverished) and then winds up in the metropolitan downtown area which is the financial center of the Twin Cities (if such a center can be said to exist). The question then is: Who is this system helping? The rich suburbanite who has shown time and again that he prefers traffic congestion to public transportation? The poor inner-city working mother who has neitherthe time nor the money to shop, shop, shop at the Mall of America? Or is it the case thet the only people who really get anything out of this are the politican who gets to bask in the glory of showy developement projects accompanied by matching federal funds and the government worker who is paid to build, to administrate, and, if needs be, sit, even if no one ever uses the light rail system.

There is, it seems, a clear answer, but it requires a bit of investigation.

Income Of Nearby Residents

In terms of the passengers, it is clear that those who will be best able to ride the light rail trains are those living close to the line. Referring to the link on the left, it is clear that while relatively afluent neighborhoods south of the city will be served by the Hiawatha line, so will the poorest neighborhoods located at the center of the urban core. Thus, while some relatively wealthy people will have easy access to the line, a very large proportion of the poorest people (mostly owing to their condensed location at the urban core) will also have access. What's more, as those closer to the city center are less likely to drive unneccasary miles even if they own a vehicle (for both economic and convinience reasons) they are more likely to decide to use the rail line for any business they have along its route.

It should also be mentioned that despite its gentrificity, the light rail line will cost roughly the same amount as a bus trip on Minneapolis's MTA, who despite some progress recently, is still remarkable for its inconvenience. I also feel that I should mention that, while poor people may have less money to spend at the mall, that does not necessarily preclude them from enjoying time spent their as a part of popular American culture at large.

Population Density and Job Location Relative to the Hiawatha Line

As the map upon which the rail line has been superimposed clearly shows, despite the amoeba-like expanse of Twin-City residences and buisnesses, the Hiawatha line does a very good job of running through about the maximum population density possible for its entire route. Another important fact that is demonstrated is that the Mall of America and the International Airport are both areas of high job density. in fact, the argument could easily be made that the jobs featured at these locales are relatively blue collar and that, from a pragmatic standpoint, poor people have much more to gain from increased access to these employment centers then wealthy people do from access to these areas from a relatively small corridor. Indeed, from the data shown, most rich people would be much more likely to take a car to these locales because they are likely to live far from the city center with minimal access to mass transit, even assuming they would use it.

The second important realization from this mapping is that the Hiawatha is minimally competitive with major arteries. That is, its construction is unlikely to obstruct major arteries and the Light Rail Line's commuter function is clearly not one of coaxing suburbanites away from their single-occupancy vehicles. It is located in such a way as to maximize the benefits to people who are relatively close to the urban core while encouraging growth there that presumably will take into account the availability of convenient mass-transit and be less likely, therefore, to contribute to the growing problem of congestion.

Effect of Hiawatha Line On African American Communities

The demographical map linked to on the left is a shocking testament to the pervasive and disturbing racial segregation of the greater Minneapolis area. African-Americans comprise approximately five percent of the population in Minnesota. As is shown here, the majority of these citizens live in communities that are over fifty percent African-American. What is worse, and, more important to point out, these segregated neighborhoods are also far and away the most poverty stricken. These statistics, sadly enough, gell well with the idea that those in the urban core are those with the least standing in society and are consstently abandonded there by more affluent commuters. Thus they are facced with the least social goods, and the smallest tax base from which to recieve assistance or educate their children. It does not matter whether people are willfully excersicing racism. Anyone who believes in equality of opportunity and fundamental social responsibilty can see the need to stop the process of sprawl and its socially reprehensible ramifications.

The Hiawatha line, in providing pooer, less mobile residents a means not only for greater mobility in finding and keeping a decent job, but also a means for concentrating and propomting social and commercial activities that might reflect the permanency of the transportation infrastructure.

Effect of Hiawatha Line on Latino Comunities

Again, the map here pretty much speaks for itself. The Hiawatha runs directly next an extrordiarily high concetration of Latinos in the urban core and, again, these residents face by far the most oppressive poverty in the region. Increased mobility and the likelihood of community investment centered upon the rail line is a powerful possible benefit in this case.

A single point that might be made to further strengthen the argument for using tax-payer dollars to fund this rail might be that while those who are protesting such spending most adhemently are members of distance neighborhoods who will not enjoy very large benefit s from this spending, they are also likely to be lucratively employed on the basis of proximity to the urban regional center, if not within the center itself. It would take a particularly callous person to suggest that it is just or preferrable that the impoverished minorities unable to escape from the black-hole center of the sprawl process ought not be compensated on the basis that more wealthy and mobile people make there living from the existence of that system.

In the end, it may be the case that traffic congestion and its cost to commuters will not be directly mitigated by the contruction of the Hiawatha Line. There is, however, research suggesting that cities with light rail lines experience slower growth in their traffic congestion levels. In the end however, to argue that relieving traffic congestion ought to be a priority of a city plagued by sprawl, inequailty and segregation, is to simply argue that no one matters but one's own self and that the structures that give rise to these problems ought to be treated as sacrosanct. The benefit of light rail, in my view, has far less to do with easing the commute than with providing a stable foundation for main urban corridor economic developement and, perhaps, years down the road, an urban community that would rather stay in their civilization than flee to distant sanctuary.