John Pucher: Light rail not prudent

In your Sept. 28 editorial “Light rail derailed in the dark” supporting light rail, you cited your own reporter Bruce Siceloff as the source of your support for light rail in the Triangle, although he has no academic credentials in transportation.

I have a Ph.D. from MIT in urban transportation and have spent over four decades doing objective, scientific research on the economics of public transit. I have carefully examined the official reports used to justify light rail in the Triangle, and nowhere is it justified. The costs far exceed the benefits.

Light rail would be inequitable as well, serving at most 5 percent of the population in the Triangle. It would do nothing to reduce congestion or air pollution.

In spite of the unanimous rejection of light rail by a panel of three objective transit professionals last year, The N&O continues to support a transit technology that is unsuited to the travel needs in the Triangle.

Why do you insist that 95 percent of Triangle residents pay additional taxes to support a light rail transit system they will never use?

There is one major beneficiary of light rail: real estate developers. Certainly not the taxpayers who would be paying the bill.

This story was originally published October 3, 2015 at 2:00 PM with the headline "John Pucher: Light rail not prudent."