I am for light rail systems, but I continue to read how so many believe they are not worth the investment and are not helping to improve transit. I have read that light rail in Houston, and LA are not really working. Can anyone speak about the matter.
The single line we have here in Charlotte is operating at levels far beyond the original estimates.
There have been several previous threads on light rail viability, and I would encourage you to look at them, since there are some pretty thorough discussions. I’m not going to attempt to recap them all, but let me make a few observations.
What do we mean by “really working”? You can generally assume that light rail systems will lose great gobs of money. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t “working”. A well designed light rail system can be important to the viability of a city’s central business district, something that won’t show up in the light rail system’s profit and loss statement. That, to me, is the ultimate measure of whether a light rail system is “working”. On the other hand, meeting or exceeding ridership projections may or may not be significant, depending on where the riders are coming from. Keep in mind that one strategy usually employed with new light rail systems is to restructure to surrounding bus lines so that they “feed” the light rail rather than operate through to their former destinations. So, it’s entirely possible that a light rail system can meet or exceed its ridership projections, but result in few, if any, new riders to the transit system as a whole (or, worse, result in a net decrease because of the forced transfers). I’m not saying this is true of all light rail systems, but it is almost certainly true of some of them (Houston is a good candidate).
One measure of “success” or “failure” you often see, which I don’t regard as particularly valid is the number of riders on the light rail system compared to some measure of total travel in the metropolitan area. The light rail p
As has been pointed out, what is meant by “working” is a key to determining whether light rail is working.
If working means that the trains are dependable, safe, economical, etc., the systems that I have ridden (DART, Houston, San Diego, San Francisco, and Charlotte) meet the test.
Exceeding the expected number of riders, especially on start-up, is not a good metric. Anyone familiar with forecasting knows that it is easy to make the numbers look good. Just low ball the estimates, and they will be exceeded.
Having lived in Dallas for more than 31 years, I am most familiar with the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light rail lines. I campaigned for the DART Referendum, which made the light rail system possible. At the time light rail seemed to be the best solution for putting the rapid in public transit in Dallas. In retrospect, had it been available, Rapid Bus Technology might have been a better solution in some parts of Dallas, e.g. Oak Cliff, South Dallas, etc. It would have been significantly less expensive than light rail. But it would not have been politically acceptable.
The DART light rail lines require an average subsidy of more than $3 per passenger or more than double the fare box revenue. They other systems require similar subsidies, although San Diego covers more of its operating costs out of the fare box than any of the other systems reviewed. Significant subsidies are required for most if not all transit systems in the U.S. And this is probably true for transit systems around the world.
Light rail systems have required significant federal construction subsidies. The proponents of the DART light rail system started out shunning federal subsidies, but they quickly realized that only the feds have the resources required to build the system. The costs have been considerably higher than anti
What I read is that the Houston and Dallas transit lines were not being used to it’s fullest potential. I assume they design these lines to encourage development near those lines and these routes are to be built for future needs. If a line is built and then go build away from the transit line then that is poor city management. It may also not be a bad idea for the local news affiliate to go out on one of these trains for a day and interview some of the people and that they are just regular people. I think some of these city planners may have mismanaged how they were going to use these lines and how future development was going to be handled. Though you do have people who just don’t want to sacrifice their car.
While an LRV may not have that many more times the capacity of a bus, keeping multiple vehicles out of the downtown to reduce congestion and emissions are a community benefits.
By feeding an LRT, or any other rail line, the bus-mile cost savings can be significant and more than offset higher rail operating costs. This may result in forcing a transfer; but a smoother ride and faster service could offset the inconvenience.
Despite Chicago Transit Authority’s strained finances in recent years, numerous additional express routes were implemented and proved to be popular with the public. The down-side was that operating costs exceeded the revenue; and many riders were diverted from both the L and Metra, resulting in reductions in service from lower ridership on the arterial routes formerly used to reach the L. The additional transfer revenue was lost in the process as well. The newer express routes are among those now facing discontinuance.
For me as a European this is an interesting discussion that is lead in many cities around the globe. I personally have used the San Diego Trolley as well as the Muni system in S.F., the light rail in L.A., the Sky train in Vancouver or the Toronto tramways and subway, to name a few in North America. Other than that I used public transport in large cities like Melbourne, Sydney or Singapore, and of course in many larger European cities like London, Paris or Berlin.
Two things are common to all of them: they produce a more or less heavy loss in financial terms, by the same token they seem to be indispensable for traffic and hence for quality of life in the big cities of the world. One of my local friends here is a scientist who is looking at those issues for many years has made the statement that one shouldn’t just look at the direct costs of this systems. Sure they are expensive to be constructed and have high operational costs that can only be covered to about 60% by the revenue - on the average, in some places more inothers less.
But they are vital not only for the CBDs but for urban life in general. In most european cities you can go to work by using them, you can go out for whining and dining and still get a safe and cheap ride home in the middle of the night. If there are large events, be it rock concerts, or sport events that attract huge crowds, well planned rail bound systems can cope with that easily, and one has to include the savings from having lesser accidents and losses of lifes as well into the calculation, not to mention better air qualities in city centres.
As far as transport capacities are concerned, I live south of Vienna, Austria and am connected to the city by a light rail line. The trains run quarter hourly and take 32 minutes to a suburban center (14 miles) and 53 minutes to the terminus Opera house in the very center (20 miles). One single trip costs $ 3.70 if one goes all the way (it is a zoned system). Y
It does depend, as other respondents have pointed out, on exactly how you define success in light rail transit.
First, we have to acknowledge that ANY transit mode in anything but a forced monopoly–for example, the people-mover function of Disney World’s monorails–is going to lose money. The only argument is over what is an acceptable loss level, how much service must be rendered at what level of loss (“night owl” runs, for example), etc.
Last week, the popular alternative-magazine “question man,” Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope, devoted his weekly column to this topic:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2917/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy
This naturally inspired some discussion at the column’s website forums:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=547948
Another critic of the concept of mass transit is Randal O’Toole, an economist and public policy analyst with the Cato Institute. He is the author of a 2001 book “The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban Myths.” This book attempts to point out–and does a fairly convincing job of doing so–that the studies, numbers, theories, motivations, and data used to justify the construction and/or installation of most new forms of mass transit (such as a new subway or light rail line, or a commuter train service) are seldom, if ever, actually matched by reality. I remember a chart from a 1989 study by the Urban Mass Transit Administration (a Feder
The reason that rail lines always run way over budget is because it takes ten years to do all the idiotic paperwork and get all the multiple level government permits and approvals before you can move the first shovel full of dirt and settle the NIMBY lawsuits. In the mean time you have inflation.
I’m not so sure that the Libertarian Mr. O’Toole is exactly a highly respected expert on urban transit:
Like others here, I’d encourage you to review the previous threads on this topic. Transit theory and statistics aside, I’ll share some observations of a system I use often (and my wife uses daily): Pittsburgh’s T. In rush hours, the Beechview line operates packed, 2-car trains on 10-minute headways, moving people between the South Hills area and the CBD. The Overbrook line sees similar rush hour use. Pittsburgh’s CBD remains an important employment center, with one of the highest daytime swell factors in the U.S., as a percentage of population. And it’s estimated that 50% of persons who enter Pittsburgh’s downtown on weekdays do so via public transit, so it’s not surprising that the T runs at capacity during rush hour. The T moves some 28,000 riders on a typical weekday. Some of these patrons use park-and-ride lots; others walk to the stations. Estimating conservatively, if 10,000 of these T users were to drive instead, they’d have, maybe, 1.5 occupants per car. (It’s probably more like 1.25, but for argument’s sake…) At just 10,000 riders who aren’t driving, that means the T alone is keeping some 6,700 cars off local roads each day. During the day, single cars run every 15 minutes and are often at least 50% full - students, shift workers, shoppers, etc. And for special occasions, such as sports and major civic events, the T runs 2-car trains at off-peak hours that are usually more jam-packed than during weekday rush. One of the keys to the T’s efficiency is that it uses mostly private right-of-way, although with grade crossings. The exception is about a mile of street running on a lightly traveled secondary street. Most importantly, it uses downtown subway and elevated trackage to eliminate a potential source of congestion. Without the right data, I can’t answer your question about whether all this is worth the investment, but here in Pittsburgh, at least, with a system nearly as old as San Diego’s, light rail certainly provides a popular public good. Ridership levels on many of the
[quote user=“highgreen”]
Like others here, I’d encourage you to review the previous threads on this topic. Transit theory and statistics aside, I’ll share some observations of a system I use often (and my wife uses daily): Pittsburgh’s T. In rush hours, the Beechview line operates packed, 2-car trains on 10-minute headways, moving people between the South Hills area and the CBD. The Overbrook line sees similar rush hour use. Pittsburgh’s CBD remains an important employment center, with one of the highest daytime swell factors in the U.S., as a percentage of population. And it’s estimated that 50% of persons who enter Pittsburgh’s downtown on weekdays do so via public transit, so it’s not surprising that the T runs at capacity during rush hour. The T moves some 28,000 riders on a typical weekday. Some of these patrons use park-and-ride lots; others walk to the stations. Estimating conservatively, if 10,000 of these T users were to drive instead, they’d have, maybe, 1.5 occupants per car. (It’s probably more like 1.25, but for argument’s sake…) At just 10,000 riders who aren’t driving, that means the T alone is keeping some 6,700 cars off local roads each day. During the day, single cars run every 15 minutes and are often at least 50% full - students, shift workers, shoppers, etc. And for special occasions, such as sports and major civic events, the T runs 2-car trains at off-peak hours that are usually more jam-packed than during weekday rush. One of the keys to the T’s efficiency is that it uses mostly private right-of-way, although with grade crossings. The exception is about a mile of street running on a lightly traveled secondary street. Most importantly, it uses downtown subway and elevated trackage to eliminate a potential source of congestion. Without the right data, I can’t answer your question about whether all this is worth the investment, but here in Pittsburgh, at least, with a system nearly as old as San Diego’s, light rail certainly provides a popular public good. Ridership levels
If we count Pittsburgh’s trolley and trolley/interurban days, you’re right. The system’s roots are very old. But by “system,” I was referring to light rail only. According to "Headlights,’ the journal of the Electric Railroaders Association, the first day of revenue operation for San Diego’s light rail was July 26, 1981. Phase I of Pittsburgh’s light rail opened in three stages: South Hills Village to Castle Shannon in April 1984; the downtown subway in July 1985; and Castle Shannon to downtown, via Mt. Lebanon, Dormont and Beechview, in 1987. Phase II, the rebuilt, modernized Overbrook line, opened in the mid-2000s. So in terms of light rail, San Diego was first. Can the “San Diego Trolley” be considered the grandad of all the modern US light rail operations?
How about Boston’s Boeing Vertrol Cars? When started in Boston and were they light rail?
It’s pretty hard to say what the “grandad” of light rail systems is because, to do that, you have to differentiate between the newer systems and older systems which, with modern rolling stock, would be considered light rail lines today. There’s really no principled way to do that, Pittsburgh is a good example. The “pre-light rail” lines that survived into the late 1970’s (and eventually became the current light rail system) had all of the characteristics of a modern “light rail” system, except older rolling stock (PCC cars) and the generally decrepit condition of the trackage . True, they had street running in the central business district and in a few other locations, but modern light rail lines also have these characteristics. The Boston subway-surface lines are another good example of a very old system which, for all practical purposes, was a “light rail” rapid transit system. Add to this list Philadelphia subway-surface lines, the Newark subway and the Shaker Heights system in the Cleveland area, all of which predate the San Diego system by over half a century.
I Believe systems need time to show how they will be truly effective. The idea is to build the infrastructure first and then see it’s benefits a few decades down the road.
The effectiveness of LR cannot be measured by ridership or revenue alone. In the Greater LA area, before LR, the traffic on workdays was threatening to choke the area’s economic future. Expanding freeways or adding new ones was fast becoming impossible due to the cost of land and the fact that we just were running out of places to put the roads. So they built the Blue Line (a really good idea), the Green Line (a good idea poorly executed), the Subway (a good idea cut short, which is now regretting by the NIMBYs), the Gold Line (another good idea), and the Gold Line extension (good idea).
Currently the construction of the Exposition Line is proceeding and the Subway to the sea has been approved. The voters approved a rise in the sales tax to finance it all. The LA area is honeycombed with the old ROWs just waiting for new rails to be laid. The Blue Line follows an old Pacific Electric ROW and the Gold runs mostly on the Santa Fe’s route to Pasadena and then east (the route the Super Chief followed). NIMBYs who fear a reduction in property value should look at the development near the Gold Line in Pasadena: New apartments and condos all over. New stores, many within an easy walk of the line.
The transportation value of these lines is the reduction of pressure on the area freeways. Just as a BNSF intermodal freight usually means 200+ fewer trucks on the road, so the LR (plus Amtrak and Metrolink) means a lot fewer cars commuting on the freeway. As the price of gas goes up (and it will) and the population of the LA Basin goes up the answer to the increase in traffic will be a mix of local streets, freeways, and lots of rail transport.
One has to look at the total cost and value to all forms of transportation. You can’t look at one mode of transportation all by itself.
Jack
Have we forgotten Muni? Mostly street running with the older twin Peaks and modern Market Street tunnels.
So it looks like a basic distinction here - and, yes, I agree it’s a tough one to make in some cases - between: a) cities that once had street railway systems (sometimes including private rights-of-way) and abandoned them, but years later built modern light rail systems; and b) cities that transitioned from their street railways (also some with private r-o-w) into the present light rail era with little or no interruption. That would make San Diego an “a,” along with Los Angeles, Denver, Portland, St. Louis, and Houston, among others. Meanwhile, Boston, Philadelphia, Newark and Shaker Heights Rapid are all in the “b” column. I’d maintain that Pittsburgh is a near “b” because it ceased rail operations for a few years but, as already mentioned, the preservation of the South Hills rights-of-way made a light rail revival viable. Boston basically moved to more modern equipment without interruption, as did San Francisco, although with some new r-o-w construction. Of the cities now contemplating light rail systems, are there any more potential "b"s left? And am I correct that public acceptance of light rail seems to have little to do with whether the city is an “a” or a “b” type? You might think light rail would be more accepted in the “b” cities, but look at the success of systems in places like Salt Lake City and - whoda thunkit? - sprawling Phoenix.
Having many business trips to LAX in the 1970s and 1980 I felt that there was no chance in heck that the combination of AMTRAK, Metrolink, Subway, and light would work for southern California. Glad to admit that I was totally wrong…
Jack _S stating that you have to wait to see the results really applies here in LA. Yeah I never though Phoenix either…
Now Houston: right now the have the highest ridership per mile of any system however that is because they are only in the downtown now. An article in todays (wed) Wall street Journal states that Houston is going to have to bite a big bullet to meet enviromental rules (many smoggy days) and light rail may be one of many approaches. Could be a lot of citys are going to need to bite the light rail bullet such as my own Atlanta.