So in a way, Huston Commuters are going to be forced onto the rails through environmental regulations? I kind of think that’s not a bad idea. Kind of like they make you because it is good for you and you may like it.
A very early light rail line is the current Ashmont - Mattapan high-speed line, which, like the later Highland Branch - Riverside conversion, took a failing suburban rail line and used it for streetcar equipment. Today, it is still well worth a visit, since only PCC’s, now air conditioned, operate on it, and they have been repainted in the original orange and maroon color scheme, and giving excellent service, as wel-maintained PCC’s always did and always will. The conversion was shortly after WW ONE!!
I agree its a tough distinction, but there are some older systems that would have to be considered the equivalent of modern “light rail” systems from the day they were built rather than an evolution from a street car system. The 1920’s vintage Shaker Heights system is probably the best one I can think of. Except for a short time in its beginning (when it used streetcar tracks to access downtown Cleveland as a temporary arrangement), it has always been entirely on private ROW. With modern equipment, the Shaker Heights system as it existed in the late 1920’s would be a modern light rail line (in
How would we ever measure “respect”? There are experts on nature that–as an example–tell us that the seashores should never be built upon or rebuilt after hurricanes, and that New Orleans should be completely abandoned and relocated from its below-sea-level location. That’s a completely sensible and logical approach from the standpoint of a geologist and oceanographer, but such a view would get very little “respect” in New Orleans, Miami Beach, Myrtle Beach, or Atlantic City, or anywhere where billions/trillions are invested in seaside recreation and living, and the resulting tax revenues and tourism economies.
Simply because O’Toole doesn’t tell rail advocates what they want to hear–that rail is good, that we must build as many rail lines as possible, etc.–doesn’t make him not an expert. I’d rather hear someone who has thought the entire process through and crunched actual economic numbers, rather than someone who just says “I think trains are cool”–especially if I’m going to be forced to pay part of the costs involved via tax dollars, whether I want any part of it or not.
The criticisms leveled at O’Toole in the essay to which you linked did not assert that O’Toole presented any factually inaccurate or misleading information. Furthermore, may I stress one very important fact: The essay to which you linked was nothing more than a press release issued by a real estate developer with an apparent vested interest i
I agree with this 100%. The top goverment says yes, get the little governments out of the way, give private industry tax free status to provide these services. Tell the NIMBY’s that property rights have been restored and the owners of that land are going to build a train - deal with it.
Then we might be able to have mass transit and low taxes.
If there really is a need/market, make it attractive enough for some private investors to fill it. Squash the Unions, put people to work, don’t even tax the employees, effectively raising their saleries and lowering the cost of the operation.
All of this would be way more cost effective than taxing us all to death so some crupt politician can give out some fat contract to his borther in law and approve a 200% cost overrun.
And it would do wonders for the economy.
Sheldon
No one has challenged O’Toole’s claim that ridership failed to meet expectations. My impression is that ridership for new starts over the last couple decades exceeded projections. Am I wrong; anyone have examples to the contrary?
The same community and traffic benefits used to justify highway projects are applied to transit. Why shouldn’t transit be considered similarly and evenhandedly? O’Toole and the Cato Institute (for Biased Fact-Spinning) ignore this aspect in their agenda-driven pursuits.
[quote user=“LNER4472”]
How would we ever measure “respect”? There are experts on nature that–as an example–tell us that the seashores should never be built upon or rebuilt after hurricanes, and that New Orleans should be completely abandoned and relocated from its below-sea-level location. That’s a completely sensible and logical approach from the standpoint of a geologist and oceanographer, but such a view would get very little “respect” in New Orleans, Miami Beach, Myrtle Beach, or Atlantic City, or anywhere where billions/trillions are invested in seaside recreation and living, and the resulting tax revenues and tourism economies.
Simply because O’Toole doesn’t tell rail advocates what they want to hear–that rail is good, that we must build as many rail lines as possible, etc.–doesn’t make him not an expert. I’d rather hear someone who has thought the entire process through and crunched actual economic nu
You hit the nail on the head. I can think of a few automobile road projects around this neck of the woods built 10 years ago that would not fill one light rail vehicle a day. Sometimes impact fees are accessed but they do not come close to paying for the road and certainly with that low traffic ( have traveled some at night and met one car about every 5 miles) gasoline taxes do not pay for it!
Harvey: I haven’t found specific examples of ridership failing to meet expectations (but of course, O’Toole and that crowd claim that the projections are deliberately low-balled to make the lines look good). They decry mass transit because it involves THE EVIL GOVERNMENT. They, on the other hand, seem to think highways are the free market in action. Here’s two more articles, which though a bit nasty in tone, pretty well expose O’Toole, who is, for the most part, a self-promoted expert. He isn’t an academic, as he never completed his PHD., merely has his own “libertarian” think tank.
http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/02/randal-otoole-taking-liberties-with-the-facts/
http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/07/transit-hater-randal-otoole-gets-no-love-at-senate-hearing/
What seems to be the metric to look at would be: how many autos does a light-rail line, heavy commuter line, or streetcar line take off the road? Secondarily, how much fuel, pollution and time are saved versus
Excellent! Posted it on Facebook.
The metrics you suggested were used back when I was in planning. Gave consultants a lot of work.
[quote user=“schlimm”]
Harvey: I haven’t found specific examples of ridership failing to meet expectations (but of course, O’Toole and that crowd claim that the projections are deliberately low-balled to make the lines look good). They decry mass transit because it involves THE EVIL GOVERNMENT. They, on the other hand, seem to think highways are the free market in action. Here’s two more articles, which though a bit nasty in tone, pretty well expose O’Toole, who is, for the most part, a self-promoted expert. He isn’t an academic, as he never completed his PHD., merely has his own “libertarian” think tank.
http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/02/randal-otoole-taking-liberties-with-the-facts/
http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/07/transit-hater-randal-otoole-gets-no-love-at-senate-hearing/
What seems to be the metric to look at would be: how many autos does a light-rail line, heavy commuter line, or streetcar line take off the road? Secondarily, how much fuel, pollution and time are saved versus whatever t
O’Toole uses as evidence Urban Rail Transit Projects: Forecast Versus Actual Ridership and Costs, prepared by Don Pickrell and published by the US Department of Transportation’s Urban Mass Transit Administration in 1989. Table S-2 shows actual versus projected ridership for ten rail transit projects of the 1980s (a mix of light rail, “heavy rail”/subway, and “people mover”) averaging 59% lower than pre-construction estimates. O’Toole’s book claims that Robert Dunphy of the Urban Land Institute updated Pickerell’s report in 1995, and reached similar conclusions.
The studies above are open to interpretation and criticism, and many pro-rail/transit advocates have criticized them on the basis of “it’s too soon to measure actual ridership growth.” There might be some validity to that; the Washington Metro, listed in that report as having ridership 28% below construction estimated in 1989, is bursting at the seams in 2009. I also have yet to see a reliable compilation of a similar examination of estimated ridership/costs vs. actual ridership/costs for transit projects of the 1990s and 2000s, but the projects with which I have had personal experience–Baltimore’s light rail, New Jersey’s RiverLINE, DC Metro expansion, NJ Transit’s Atlantic City service, etc.–seem to reflect a continuation of that trend. I welcome evidence to the contrary.
The point in contention is NOT “these guys are biased.”
I’m afraid the publication would have to have been published by the FTA - Federal Transit Administration - which is what the old UMTA was renamed in 1991.
Unfortunately, prior to 2001(?) before and after ridership data was not preserved.
From the FTA
Before and After Studies
of New Starts Projects
Report to Congress
September 2008
TriMet – Interstate MAX Light Rail Project
Ridership:
Observed ridership for the Interstate MAX was 11,800 passengers per weekday in the opening year (2005), compared to a 2005 model-based prediction of 13,900 riders for the FEIS published in 1999. [Note: opening-year predictions for the constructed project were not available from the earlier Alternatives Analysis and DEIS]. While actual 2005 ridership was 15 percent less than predicted, the MAX has since attracted more riders (13,600 average weekday riders in May 2007). A more detailed examination of the 2005 predicted-versus-actual information show that even with the good overall comparison, there are still areas for future travel model improvement:
• The actual number of jobs in the corridor was 27 percent less than predicted.
• The travel model output shows that 53 percent of all rail riders were commuters, whereas the results of a transit on-board survey indicate only 40 percent were commuters.
• The park-and-ride modeling assumptions were overly optimistic.
• Predicted rail speeds were 8 percent higher than actual.
• Some transfer and walk connection assumptions were overly optimistic.
I’m not a planner, so I can’t offer detailed analysis of the various points made in these posts. But let me suggest a few generalizations:
(1) The problem I have with some light rail systems is that the decision to build them seems to be made before there is any real determination that there is a need for the service. The dynamic often seems to be “Other cities have light rail - we gotta to have it too. Now, let’s see where we can put it.” The "projections"and other analyses then are created to justify this decision. You see a similar “we gotta have one” dynamic going on with the current “high speed” rail fervor. Just because some light rail systems might make “sense” (however you may define “sense”) in some applications in some cities doesn’t mean they make sense everywhere.
(2) Ridership projections are, of course, relevant to a light rail “build” decision. After all, if the system isn’t going to be sufficiently used, why build it? But “meeting” or “beating” ridership projections isn’t necessarily a measure of success. That’s because, regardless of how well a light rail system seems to do from a ridership perspective, it will still not be a “success” as measured by economic return - which is the way we normally measure economic activities. All of these systems lose great gobs of money. Since these systems have to ultimately be justified based on some social “good” other than the typical measures of “success” or “failure” for an economic endeavor, “success” has to be measured by how well they meet those goals. “Meeting ridership projections” fails as a measure of this – the system can beat its ridership goals and still not succeed in the “goal” it was supposedly built to achieve. For example, light rail systems are often justified based on how much auto traffic they will take off the roads. But the ridership numbers don’t&nbs
This video shows how Honolulu is trying to chose light rail by looking at Phoenix’s system and other types of light rail tech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDPQeigIezQ&feature=related
Concerning Houston, isn’t the current downtown street-based operation just to be the core of a much larger system that will have far higher speeds and a much larger population and area served?
Our Metrolink in St. Louis seems to be doing very well. Ridership is up, especially when the gas prices climbed. They had a huge cost overrun on expansion, due partly to having to tunnel under Clayton, which didn’t want light rail above ground (and the parking out there sucks, but St. Louis County government centers are located there). One of our problems is no turnstiles at stations to catch non-paying customers. You just board on the platform. They do have guards at some of the stations and do periodic checks in the passenger cars, but they can’t catch everyone. So I’m sure that contributes to a revenue loss. One branch runs from the border of south city and county and you can transfer to another train to go direct to our airport. Another branch goes across the Mississippi into Illinois and Scott AFB.
But the County defeated a tax to help with funding last fall and drastic cuts were made in our bus services. It’s going back on the ballot in April, the City has already voted for it, but the matching funds are needed. St. Louis is kinda strange-St. Louis City where I live is not part of any County. You go out a little farther and you’re into St. Louis County. So it makes for some problems getting both parts to agree on things.
In today’s Trains NewsWire:
http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=6218
Please note that the constituents said to be in opposition to the Minneapolis Light Rail project are groups usually stereotyped as those who would SUPPORT transit projects.
That’s the plan. Trouble is, the current line is so slow over such a distance that it will drag down anything that might be connected to it. It’s not like Dallas, which has a mile or so of street running (in reserved traffic lanes), but the rest of the system is pretty fast. The entire Houston line is slow. It also has some curious design features which make it more accident and delay prone than other systems (the feature whereby the trains charge into left turn lanes used by merging auto traffic at many cross streets is particularly dicey).
DART Rail from Plano is pretty heavily used. Where they are running into problems now is too much LRV’s downtown leading to delays. So they are working on another route through downtown and better scheduling to fix that. I don’t know how anyone can say DART Rail is not a success it’s carrying riders well beyond what was planned, IMO. DART Bus lines on the other hand are inefficient in several areas.
Sounds like a real success story.