In her annual State of the City address, Raleigh Mayor Nancy McFarlane mainly discussed the development of public transit instead of a summary of the past year. McFarlane sees the growth in the public transportation system as a necessary investment of infrastructure to support Raleigh’s economic growth in the coming decade. 

Further, the mayor argued that congestion has become increasingly problematic in the city, and developing public transit could be an effective solution to the problem. 

“[Public transit] is the key for our economic development,” McFarlane said. “Without it, we will be overcome with our success and choke ourselves off with congestion.”

The city of Raleigh has drawn national attention since it rose to the top of the list of “best cities to live in the U.S.,” a ranking published by Forbes Magazine last year. Not only Raleigh, but North Carolina as a whole has long enjoyed a reputation as an easy-going, business-friendly state. Warm weather, fine higher education and a relatively low cost of living attract lots of migrants; its population grew 18.5 percent between 2000 and 2010, compared with 9.7 percent for the United States overall. The growing population has been asking for a more accessible and affordable public transit system; otherwise, the economy might be constrained given its lagging pace in infrastructure. 

But accessing the welfare of public policy like public transit affecting millions of people should not be subject to any populist thoughts or interest of some particular groups. Rather, it should follow the empirical evidence and independent research in the field. On Wednesday, The News & Observer published an editorial rooting for McFarlane’s call by quoting nationwide statistics of well-built public transit that supports the booming of many great cities in the U.S.

But that’s a fallacy to the public transit problem in North Carolina. The editorial cited data from the American Public Transportation Association that concluded ridership was up on all forms of public transit. Subways and elevated trains were up 2.8 percent, commuter rail ridership rose 2.1 percent, light rails climbed 1.6 percent and bus ridership increased 3.8 percent in cities under 100,000 and was stable nationally. It’s true that the statistics are significant for the nationwide sample with reasonable explanation that population is on the rise. Transportation is almost a necessity, meaning people have to use it regardless of income and preference in the first place. 

Simply investing more in public transportation in response to the rising migrant population could potentially be detrimental to the life quality of the city if policymakers don’t consider people’s reactions to any policy changes. Given that information flows freely and openly to the public, investing more in public transportation sends a signal to people that Raleigh is expanding and able to accommodate more people. However, the reason Raleigh climbed to the top of the “best cities to live” list is that its size, population, resources per capita and all other yardsticks hit the right balance, either too big or too small. 

This notion runs into problem. People are attracted to moving to the city because of the high quality of life. But over time, the city will become crowded and facilities are far from enough to meet the demand of population growth. If the government responds to the demand by expanding all facilities in the city, more people will move in, and thus, the city keeps sprawling to the suburban. Housing prices start rising, living costs start soaring and the reputation of a cozy city would not be sustained. The stories of boom and bust of many great cities in the U.S. have filled its history over the past century. 

City authorities should be more cautious considering the long term when it comes to investment in infrastructures, particularly when they are under populist pressure. Being constrained on building infrastructure is not necessarily a setback but sends a signal that the city will keep a slow pace to growth and protect its reputation as the “best city to live in.”