Baltimore gondola transit "plan" a waste of time?

Half the time the writing of Virginia Postrel, a hardcore libertarian, bugs me. She has a good piece in a recent issue of Forbes about how the policies that governments should be focusing on are not taxes and/or spending incentives but on barriers to dynamism. Apparently, this piece is based on her recent book, The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress.

One of the barriers to dynamism in urban commercial districts are prevailing rents, something that I write about a lot. E.g., figuring the numbers on the Ohio Restaurant building, which is for sale, I figure the minimum rent payment would be about $9,000/mo. There's no way a profitable business on H Street could afford that. Yet a thriving commercial district needs diners and similar kinds of restaurants that appeal to area residents. That's the thesis of Richard's Rules for Restaurant Driven Revitalization.

So I worry that I might be a stick in the mud (i.e., a barrier to dynamism) with my reaction to a proposal to build a gondola-based "transit" "system" between Inner Harbor and Fells Point. See "Brothers envision gondola at harbor" from the Baltimore Sun. From the article:

As proposed the $35 million privately funded system would carry eight-passenger cable cars from the Baltimore Convention Center to the western edge of Fells Point, with two stops along the way--one at the World Trade Center and the toher at Pier Six. At 12 mph, the trip would take about seven minutes. A day pass would cost $7.

In my personal opinion, of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., Baltimore probably has the least efficient public transit system. In theory, Baltimore has great transit assets, but these assets are for the most part disconnected and as Steve Pinkus puts it "Discoordinated" so that while the Baltimore area has public transit, it's pushing it to call it a system. (Even though from a marketing standpoint, I think MTA does a lot of great stuff, producing a Riders guide, foldup maps (the size of maybe two matchbooks), and fields booths at festivals such as Artscape.)

When I visit Baltimore, I bring my bike (via WMATA and MTA transit) or drive, because the transit system isn't very efficient from a time standpoint. Think of the places beyond the Inner Harbor--Charles Village/Hopkins, Waverly (Pete's Diner), Hampden Village, Pigtown (B&O Railroad Museum), Fells Point, Highlandtown, Federal Hill--and trying to get to a number of these places in one day, exclusively by transit.

Compared to DC, Baltimore has pathetic ridership of its subway (less than 60,000 daily riders) and light rail (less than 24,000 daily riders). The estimated 1.9 million riders for the gondola system would be about 5,200 daily riders.

It's a mistake to develop a transit system almost exclusively for tourists, unless you have tens of millions of tourists. Just like with retail downtown requiring multiple market segments: residents, office workers; visitors to be successful, but especially residents, transit success rests on residents.

Of course, it is private money. But I think of systems like Detroit's People Mover or the Monorail in Seattle, which some tourists ride, but accomplish precious little in terms of the creation of a grander, more useful transit system. The newspaper article references the new tram in Portland, but that system is designed to provide access to the Oregon Health Sciences Center. It's not a cute thing for tourists. Still, they don't expect to hit 5,500 daily round trips (11,000 daily riders) for 20 years.
Detroit News graphic.

Shouldn't the City of Baltimore demand that MTA direct resources towards making public transit efficient and effective and a competitive advantage for the city (comparable to Washington, DC or Arlington County, Virginia) rather than be frivolous and create yet another unconnected transit "asset" likely to be underutilized.

There is a great deal of criticism that the Red Line light rail planning creates more disconnection rather than connection, and there are alternative proposals for expanding the subway beyond Johns Hopkins Hospital to Canton (I'd suggest going west from Canton back to the center of the city). In any case, such expansions would serve more area residents, and provide greater options for people not dependent on transit for mobility.

Index Keywords: urban-revitalization; transit