The single line we have here in Charlotte is operating at levels far beyond the original estimates.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
BT CPSO 266I 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.
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 percentage is always low in these measures. The problem with this comparison is that the light rail is designed for a specific task - moving people on a specific corridor mostly to and from a central business district. A single line (or even a few lines) will never seem to be a large percentage of total trips in a metro area because the majority of the trips in that area aren't going to/from places where the light rail is an alternative.
I ridden a large number of light rail systems, but not nearly all of them. One definite difference I've seen is that some are designed to be high speed rapid transit lines for most of their distance (DART, San Diego) while others are little more than express bus services in the medians of arterial streets (Houston), My own view is that the ones which are essentially rapid transit lines and which appear well patronized are probably "working" in the sense that they are supporting the viability of their central business districts. In that regard, I think the LA light rail lines, which follow the rapid transit model, probably "work" (I haven't yet ridden the new East LA line, so I'll reserve judgement on that one). The Blue Line (to Long Beach), in particular, is packed even during off peak hours. But I seriously question the lines that operate primarily in the medians of arterial streets. I've ridden the Houston line a number of times, and it seems to me they could have done better by building express bus lanes for their existing bus routes rather than by building an expensive rail line and forcing people to transfer to it.
I'm sure others will have views on this subject.
.
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 anticipated, with some of the recent construction exceeding the budgeted costs by more than $1 billion.
Most of the systems have exceeded their construction budgets. The U.S. Transit Administration, in fact, has become alarmed at the cost of the systems and has been urging transit systems to look to alternatives. For a nation where federal, state, and local government debt exceeds $17.3 trillion or 122.6 per cent of GDP, paying attention to project costs seems prudent.
Less than three to five per cent of the residents in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex use any form of public transit. The car is king. And it is likely to remain so, even if the cost of fuel exceeds $4 a gallon, which it will in time. When it does most people will turn to alternative fuel vehicles. Most Texans, at least, will not use public transit. They don't want to give up the comfort of their car (truck) to share a seat with someone who has not had a bath in a week and insists on shouting into a cell phone. Relatively few public transit passengers' fits this description, but it is the impression that most Texans have, I think. In any case, public transit does not have a good reputation in Texas, and most people are not going to use it.
Proponents of light rail claim that it has revitalized their downtown or attracted real estate developments. This is true to a certain extent along the DART lines. What is not said, however, is the most dynamic in-town housing and commercial development in Dallas has popped up miles away from the light rail lines. The best example is the Uptown area of Dallas. It is the place for young professionals, who have been attracted to the apartments and condos in the area. There is no empirical evidence that the developments that have taken place along the rail lines would not have occurred somewhere in the city sans the light rail lines. After all, in a growing city like Dallas or others, people need a place to live.
Falcon48What do we mean by "really working"? ...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've ridden the Houston line a number of times, and it seems to me they could have done better by building express bus lanes for their existing bus routes rather than by building an expensive rail line and forcing people to transfer to it. I'm sure others will have views on this subject.
...I've ridden the Houston line a number of times, and it seems to me they could have done better by building express bus lanes for their existing bus routes rather than by building an expensive rail line and forcing people to transfer to it.
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). You can interchange with heavy rail and buses at some smaller centers along the way, and to the metropolitan subway in the city, still using the same ticket. The service starts at 6 a.m. and cedes past midnight, every day of the year. It is extremely reliable and safe and so the 2 car consists are very well patronized. Ticket sales on this line cover 77% of the costs.
I think that most important is that people can get to and from whereever they want to go with one ticket that is reasonably prized (i.e. a network is needed not just a single line), and can do so at any time it pleases them. In cities or towns where public transport systems offer poor interoperabilities or running at unacceptable long intervals (in my eyes everything more than 20 minutes is unacceptable) they are of little use for the majority and just won't be used.
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 Federal agency, not an activist group) showing that actual ridership of new rail transit projects averaged 59 percent lower than the ridership projected by pre-construction studies. Similarly, actual capital costs averaged 46% higher than projections, and actual operating costs averaged 78% higher than estimates.
Lesson: You will always find a consultant willing to be paid to tell you what you want to hear. How much that has to do with the real world is open to debate.
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.
LNER4472Another 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."
I'm not so sure that the Libertarian Mr. O'Toole is exactly a highly respected expert on urban transit:
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
highgreenLike 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 newer systems, such as Salt Lake City, Phoenix, and Charlotte, suggest the same thing. Lastly, there is now an emerging trend in people moving to walkable communities to leave behind sprawling second-ring suburbs and exurbs, where everything is a drive away. If transit is already established, or being planned, in such desirable places to provide non-car access to employment centers and other CBD amenities, it can be a powerful draw to such neighborhoods. That's definitely so where I live. Light rail may not be the solution in every case, but where appropriate, it's proving daily that it certainly can improve transit.
As a historical footnote, the Pittsburgh system is actually much older that the San Diego system. the heart of the existing Pittsburgh light rail system consists of the inner portions of the old interurban lines to Charleroi (I can't vouch for the spelling) and Washington, built in the early 20th century. While the outer ends of the lines were abandoned in the 1950's, the inner portions (from Library and Drake) operated as part of the city transit system (in increasingly dilapidated condition) until they were converted into modern light rail lines. The really big change between the olden days and now was the downtown subway. The old lines had entered downtown over the Smithfield Bridge and then over city streets. The new light rail uses an old railroad bridge over the river and then goes through a subway, most of which is in an abandoned railroad tunnel (like the tunnel in downtown St. Louis used by the St. Louis light rail). I'm sure this saved them a bundle of money.
highgreen. 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.
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.
Falcon48It'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.
Jack_SThe 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
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.
blue streak 1An 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.
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!!
highgreenSo 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.
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 fact, that's pretty much what the current system is) The Red Arrow Media, Sharon Hills and Norristown light rail lines (all of which are older than Shaker Heights) should probably also be in this category. San Diego might have been the spark that set off the current interest in light rail, but it can't be considered the "grandad" of light rail systems.
Substantial parts of the LAX system replicate old Pacific Electric lines, not streetcar lines. The Blue Line is the most obvious one, since most of it is the old PE Long Beach line. The Pasedana line recreates a PE service, but it's not on the PE alingment. The Exposition Line, when it opens, will replicate portions of the old PE Santa Monica Air line. Obviously, many years passed between the end of PE service on these lines and the opening of the modern lines
I wasn't aware that the South Hills lines in Pittsburgh were ever completely shut down (except, possibly, for the period in which they were being rebuilt), but I could be wrong on this. I know the Overbrook line was shut down for a number of years due primarily to bridge conditions. The rebuilding was very substantial, much of it on a different alignment.
Offhand, I can't think of any other potential "b" cities in this country. The few true "streetcar" lines I can think of that still exist in this country wouldn't lend themselves to light rail conversion.
schlimmLNER4472Another 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." I'm not so sure that the Libertarian Mr. O'Toole is exactly a highly respected expert on urban transit:http://www.wddcorp.com/news/view_news.asp?id=66
http://www.wddcorp.com/news/view_news.asp?id=66
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 in Portland's light rail development--the very developer cited in the article as calling O'Toole "an idiot."
The articles mentioned in the press release attempt to rebut specific articles about Portland, Oregon's light rail system. Without review of the actual articles in question, we're left just letting two parties disagree. Again, no one has managed to prove O'Toole factually inaccurate. At best, most of the critics of O'Toole are left attempting to make the case that the subsidies for transit (of any type, really) are "worth it" for reasons having little or nothing to do with actual dollars spent: congestion reduction, pollution reduction, uses electricity, quieter, people ride rails that won't ride buses, etc.
In response to another answer above that basically implies that such projects should be built and then given time to show their worth, I ask: Much as I agree that traffic changes and habits take time to develop, if a system or line is fundamentally flawed to begin with, why spend, say, a billion to build it and $20+ million a year to operate it (numbers plucked out of thin air just as an example) just in hopes of eventually increasing the numbers in your favor? Remember once again: NONE of these lines EVER returns a profit or even comes anywhere close to covering their operating costs out of the farebox. One of O'Toole's repeating themes is that governments are sold inflated expectations with studies promising far higher ridership numbers than actually show up, at least in initial years. Would these lines be built if the numbers given by advance studies were actually accurate? In a great many cases, probably not--the per-passenger subsidy would be seen as extravagant.
Phoebe Vet 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 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.
LNER4472schlimmLNER4472Another 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." I'm not so sure that the Libertarian Mr. O'Toole is exactly a highly respected expert on urban transit:http://www.wddcorp.com/news/view_news.asp?id=66 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 in Portland's light rail development--the very developer cited in the article as calling O'Toole "an idiot."The articles mentioned in the press release attempt to rebut specific articles about Portland, Oregon's light rail system. Without review of the actual articles in question, we're left just letting two parties disagree. Again, no one has managed to prove O'Toole factually inaccurate. At best, most of the critics of O'Toole are left attempting to make the case that the subsidies for transit (of any type, really) are "worth it" for reasons having little or nothing to do with actual dollars spent: congestion reduction, pollution reduction, uses electricity, quieter, people ride rails that won't ride buses, etc.In response to another answer above that basically implies that such projects should be built and then given time to show their worth, I ask: Much as I agree that traffic changes and habits take time to develop, if a system or line is fundamentally flawed to begin with, why spend, say, a billion to build it and $20+ million a year to operate it (numbers plucked out of thin air just as an example) just in hopes of eventually increasing the numbers in your favor? Remember once again: NONE of these lines EVER returns a profit or even comes anywhere close to covering their operating costs out of the farebox. One of O'Toole's repeating themes is that governments are sold inflated expectations with studies promising far higher ridership numbers than actually show up, at least in initial years. Would these lines be built if the numbers given by advance studies were actually accurate? In a great many cases, probably not--the per-passenger subsidy would be seen as extravagant.
HarveyK400 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.
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!
HarveyK400No 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.
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/
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 the alternative has been.
Excellent! Posted it on Facebook.
The metrics you suggested were used back when I was in planning. Gave consultants a lot of work.
schlimmHarveyK400No 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. 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 the alternative has been.
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." Of course they are--and so are politicians (towards spending other people's money) and transit advocates (towards getting the government to spend other people's money for their benefit). The point to those studies is that pre-construction ridership estimates have been routinely over-estimated or exaggerated, and projects have been built on the basis of these exaggerations, some of which probably should not have been built in such a fashion as a result.
Is there anyone here who can pull up a study showing multiple rail transit projects and their pre-construction estimates versus actual results for projects in the 1990s and 2000s--preferably by the UMTA? Anecdotal "The light rail's always crowded when I ride it in [my town]" doesn't cut it.
And if someone can produce a consultant whose pre-construction estimates turned out to be horribly low (I think San Diego Light Rail is routinely the "poster child" for this happening), let's hire these guys for our next project!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.