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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Unfortunately, prior to 2001(?) before and after ridership data was not preserved.
From the FTA
Before and After Studiesof New Starts ProjectsReport to CongressSeptember 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 tell you whether a single car has been removed from the road - the light rail riders could mostly be people who were already using public transit (as I've pointed out in other posts, the opening of a light rail line is typically accompanied by a restructuing of bus services so that bus routes feed riders to the light rail rather than take them to their destinations).
My own view, which I've expressed before, is that light rail (and other forms or rail transit) only make sense as part of a comprehensive strategy to create or retain a viable central business district in larger metropolitan areas. For a variety of reasons, this can't really be achieved with an auto based transportation system (as one example, the parking required for the number of people needed to make the CBD viable often can't be provided without destroying large portions of the CBD). It can't be justified as part of a strategy to "reduce" auto use in a metro area, because these systems typically move too small a percentage of transportation throughout a metro area to do that.
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.
daveklepper 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?
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.
CMStPnPDART 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.
Sounds like a real success story.
Haha, East Coast bias at work! :)
San Diego is the undisputed granddad of modern LRT systems because like most North American cities, it did not depend on its old streetcar infrastructure but started anew with a totally new system.
Your other examples are all cities that retained parts of their old streetcar infrastructure and simply modernized it with new equipment. However, being that most cities dismantled their own systems, those are the exceptions and not the rule.
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.
Hi, I'm from Los Angeles. "Not really working?" Where did you read that from? The Reason Foundation? [lol]
Here's some facts for ya:
* The Los Angeles Metro Blue Line, which opened 20 years ago, is the #2 highest-ridden light rail line in North America (Behind Boston's MBTA Green Line), carrying some 77,000 riders daily. It is almost at capacity.
* There are two other light rail lines here (Green Line and Gold Line), which do not have the ridership levels of the Blue Line, but just this past November, the Gold Line got extended into East Los Angeles, which added 6 miles and several thousand more riders.
* As I write this, another light rail line, from Downtown Los Angeles to Culver City, known as the Exposition Line, is being built. It will open either late this year or 2011. Recently, Metro, our transit agency, approved the 2nd and final phase of the line to be built to Santa Monica.
* Another LRT corridor has been approved in late 2009, linking the Exposition Line with the Green Line and serving Los Angeles International Airport.
* A future extension of the Gold Line in the San Gabriel Valley past its current Pasadena terminus is also planned, as well as an extension of the existing Gold Line to serve the South Bay area.
* A "regional connector" in the form of an LRT subway underneath Downtown Los Angeles is being planned at the moment, which will physically connect the Blue, Gold and Exposition lines and provide more routing possibilities (meaning single-ride trips, eliminating transfers).
* In 2008, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure R, a sales tax increase that would fund future light rail construction (as well as a subway extension to the Westside). In this economy, the fact that voters would approve of a sales tax increase (and in CA, sales tax increases need a 2/3rds majority to pass) says a lot.
2010 marks the 20th year of LRT in Los Angeles. A lot has been done in the past two decades and there's a lot more in the works and on the drawing board. There are currently 62 miles of LRT lines in operation, with 8 more currently under construction.
Some light rail lines in the US exist initially as starter systems: They're not very long and they don't carry a lot of people, but each time it's extended, ridership multiplies exponentially, even more when another line/branch connects to it.
Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers
jockellis I doubt if they would have much in common. It is a fact that no form of transportation pays it way. Government has to pay and pay and pay.
Where exactly does government get this money? From us the people of course. So we pay, either at the pump, the fare box or to the tax man.
The question is not who pays, but rather are we getting what we need and want at a reasonable price?
Roads are paid for by a series of direct and indirect taxes, we ALL need them in some form to some degree, we all pay. Some of us use them more directly and pay more through fuel taxes, truck/car registrations, etc, in addition to basic general fund taxes. Some don't own cars but still pay those basic general fund taxes AND pay indirectly with almost every dollar we spend - everything we touch travels on a truck at some point, a truck that paid fuel taxes.
Mass transit (be it buses or rail) on the other hand, is only used by some, and by virtue of design and location is only useful to some, and only some desire to use it. So by what sense of fairness should we all pay? Even more so, why should those of use who live no where near any mass transit, and already fund our own transportation by buying cars and paying registrations and fuel taxes, also subsidize the transportation of those who live dozens or hundreds of miles from us?
You may want to live in an urban setting and walk or ride the bus/trolley for most of your needs - I do not. I do not live is "suburbia" either. I live in a rural setting - no light rail is headed my way, nor could it ever go even half the places I need to travel to on a weekly basis - nor could it transport the tools of my trade to my place of work - I am a carpenter.
But somehow you think its fair for me to pay substantially higher taxes so a city 50 miles for me can have a fancy light rail/subway/trolley system?
I think my taxes are already too high and buy too much for other people who in one way or another are not pulling their weight, or paying their fair share, or being responsible for their own lives.
As a railfan and person who understands rail technology, I see the possible benfits of mass transit in urban areas, but until more people, productive people, return to LIVE, WORK and PLAY in uban areas, increasing the local tax base in those urban areas, I see no reason to hold others at gun point to fund such systems.
You want it, you live there and pay the taxes to support it. Personally the cities could all be crime free, beautiful utopias, I would still not live there. I can only hope others would and stop the building of more vinyl and cardboard McMansions (my carpentry profession is restoring 100 year old houses, not building this new crap) in what was once pristine farm land. And, thereby stop the constant expansion of the suburban highway structure.
Here's what I would like to see:
An end to suburban spraw - change the property tax laws to end urban "demolition by neglect" and eliminate the tax advantage of "fleeing the city".
More incentives to get even more freight off highways and on the backs of flat cars. The gradual outlawing of these rediculously long truck trailers that clog up streets do to lack of maneuverablity.
The elimination of most welfare - corporate and personal, and an end to the subsidizing of bad behavior - corporate and personal.
A return to the right to defend one's self, family and PROPERTY from those who would take or distory it.
If you can manage some of this list, I might think mass transit was actually important.
And while we are on this transportation thing, I don't think governments should subsidize the airline industry either. Nor should they be allowed to charge one person $300 and another person $60 for the same trip. Very few of us NEED air travel, it is a convienence, not a neccessity. And it too should PAY its own way.
But what do I know, I'm just a hick with a pickup and gun who plays with little trains.
Sheldon
jockellisIn 1989, projecting ridership for trolleys/light rail was in its infancy. As the Free Congress Foundation pointed out it one of its books, no one had projected ridership in about 70 years....
I'd hazard the guess that light rail-specific ridership projection was little more than an adaption of modal split and trip distribution modeling being developed in response to the planning requirements in the Interstate legislation. Northwestern University and the Chicago Area Transportation Study were leaders in this area in the 60's and 70's in evaluating highway and transit improvement use (ridership). At that time I was an intern at CATS calculating and coding highway and transit networks under the direction of engineers coming out of the NU program. Keys were time and money costs. Amenities, relative comfort, are factored in by calibrating empirical ridership data from similar modes. Light rail existed in Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco before 1989; but I wonder how that year may relate to San Diego and Portland?
If no one had projected ridership in 70 years, something must have been done between 1890 when electric railways became practical and 1910, the significance of which approximate time escapes me.
I really wonder about the scholarship of the Free Congress Foundation.
ATLANTIC CENTRALVery few of us NEED air travel, it is a convienence, not a neccessity. And it too should PAY its own way.
See that is the main problem.
There is a necessity to commute between & in cities or else the economy stalls. It is more of a need to grow and move more efficiently issue. Few see, but there is a transportation model shift looming for those living the metropolitan areas. You want to end urban sprawl well then it needs to replaced with smart growth with an effective mass transit system, combining light rail, bus, eventually personal rapid transit tied into the airport & intercity rail systems. Urban folk can expect to do more if not most of their commuting by mass transit in coming decades if we are smart. Build the options in the urban areas, and save the cars & oil for those who need it more, like for those living in rural areas of the country. 53% of the country lives in cities and as much as people hate to hear the truth we have to cater to those urban centers to keep the nation moving and that means financial aid to build new transit systems to meet future needs.
jockellis For instance, MARTA in Atlanta is said to stand for Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta. That was finally brought out into the open by a MARTA official a few years ago. The name had been used since Atlanta bought the bus system from Atlanta Transit and started on rail construction.
Really? Does the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority know that?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Ridership forecasting uses the same process for all modes in alternatives analysis - that is, you can't measure HRT by apples and LRT by oranges to get any meaningful result.
Different models, many proprietary, are used in many cities; but all have commonalities and produce approximately the same results. The trick is for the contracting entity to understand the biases in the forecast models and skewing in results for which they are paying.
Empirical data is used from around the country as well as the subject area. Extrapolating data entails tedious data entry; but the calculations go faster than the time it takes for a foot-thick printout. There were and are areas with a high level of variance that can be explained in part by analysis of factors such as crime and race. In the 70's, suburban rail commuting to the Chicago Loop was a higher percentage (83%) than for City residents taking any mode to the Loop (~75%). Given the gentrification and loss of City population, the City proportion may have risen. Travel to the Loop for non-work purposes is quite different, and much of the road and transit travel through Downtown goes to non-CBD destinations.
jockellisHowever, as it costs the US government four times the pump price to maintain the oil flow into America, Americans using mass transit would save not only themselves money by taking the train where possible, but they would save the government money on what we are spending in the Mideast. We would also quit sending our wealth to people who hate us.
Our failed foreign policy since WWII is another very large and complex topic, but I do understand.
Fact is though, we spend most of that money to keep the oil flowing to Europe, not to here. While some mideast oil comes here, it is more about keeping the global price stable than what oil actually goes where.
I don't buy Shell or Exxon, so I don't send the mideast a dime. I buy mostly from the companies who are selling home sourced products.
I live in rural northern Maryland and many people drive from as far away as southern PA to work in the Baltimore metro area. Until this type of thinking changes, and people are willing to live near there jobs, I do not see any hope for improving this situation.
BUT, I do agree that the problems, both now and future are real.
In 1950 the population INSIDE THE BALTIMORE CITY LIMITS was 1.2 millon, today it is less than 700,000. Block after block is boarded up and once beautiful homes are slum lord rentals or vacant.
Hundres of thousdands of people drive every day from the suburbs, some as far as 40-50 miles, to work in or near the city - what a waste of fuel and time - BUT, high taxes, high crime, bad shools and poor quality services have run the middle class out of the cities.
Only the unemployable poor and the very rich in the best old neighborhoods remain - everyone else lives in the "counties".
Find a way to fix this and it will make sense to invest in mass transit. Investing in mass transit first will not fix these problems or bring people back in closer to their jobs.
I suggest a regional property tax, not based on value, but based on size, features and use, and shared by all jurisdictions in the region. This way, a 2500 sq ft home on 1 acre would be taxed the same in the city or in the suburbs. AND, by not having it linked to value, there would be more incentive to maintain urban properties rather than allow demolition by neglect or slum lord rental conversion. Fair is fair, the taxes on similar homes in the same region would be the same, and the city would share the revenue with the counties to provide effective roads, schools, mass transit, etc,etc.
Then there would be a reason to take back the neighborhoods in the city and live a good quality urban life (hopefully keeping some of them from moving out here).
But what do I know, I'm just a hick with a pickup and a gun who plays with little trains.
Strictly to the question of success of light rail: what is the reason that new lines in LA, etc. along with realigned patterns like NJT's MidTown Direct commuter services, even Amtrak's Downeaster Service, have all surpassed ridership predictions in a quicker time than was anticipated? We spend millions and millions of dollars on surveys and anticpatory preparation to find we have understimated the use. I just listed three different services I know off the top of my head. I know there are others as well as those which have fallen flat. But there are more overachievers than underachievers in public transportation.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 Strictly to the question of success of light rail: what is the reason that new lines in LA, etc. along with realigned patterns like NJT's MidTown Direct commuter services, even Amtrak's Downeaster Service, have all surpassed ridership predictions in a quicker time than was anticipated? We spend millions and millions of dollars on surveys and anticpatory preparation to find we have understimated the use. I just listed three different services I know off the top of my head. I know there are others as well as those which have fallen flat. But there are more overachievers than underachievers in public transportation.
Henry, to me, common sense says well planned mass transit in places like LA, Boston, New York, etc is a no brainer, of course it will be used and be effective.
There are a lot of other cities in the country - many with dramaticly different demographics than places like LA. LA and Baltimore are like night and day. We use the the DC metro when we get the urge to see the sites there, it works well - but for the daily lives of most people I know, they could not build enough routes and connectors to "transitize" the Baltimore suburbs, and as stated, the working people have vertually all moved out of the city.
And again, in LA I get it. But they have not yet printed enough money to get me to live in a place like that, or even visit it on a regular basis.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL...I live in rural northern Maryland and many people drive from as far away as southern PA to work in the Baltimore metro area. Until this type of thinking changes, and people are willing to live near there jobs, I do not see any hope for improving this situation. BUT, I do agree that the problems, both now and future are real. In 1950 the population INSIDE THE BALTIMORE CITY LIMITS was 1.2 millon, today it is less than 700,000. Block after block is boarded up and once beautiful homes are slum lord rentals or vacant. Hundres of thousdands of people drive every day from the suburbs, some as far as 40-50 miles, to work in or near the city - what a waste of fuel and time - BUT, high taxes, high crime, bad shools and poor quality services have run the middle class out of the cities. Only the unemployable poor and the very rich in the best old neighborhoods remain - everyone else lives in the "counties". Find a way to fix this and it will make sense to invest in mass transit. Investing in mass transit first will not fix these problems or bring people back in closer to their jobs. I suggest a regional property tax, not based on value, but based on size, features and use, and shared by all jurisdictions in the region. This way, a 2500 sq ft home on 1 acre would be taxed the same in the city or in the suburbs. AND, by not having it linked to value, there would be more incentive to maintain urban properties rather than allow demolition by neglect or slum lord rental conversion. Fair is fair, the taxes on similar homes in the same region would be the same, and the city would share the revenue with the counties to provide effective roads, schools, mass transit, etc,etc. Then there would be a reason to take back the neighborhoods in the city and live a good quality urban life (hopefully keeping some of them from moving out here). Sheldon But what do I know, I'm just a hick with a pickup and a gun who plays with little trains.
Interesting concept for taxation - off hand, it seems like a good incentive. However, it surely would be met by a firestorm of angry suburbanites, residential and business and likely not gain sufficient political support.
HarveyK400Interesting concept for taxation - off hand, it seems like a good incentive. However, it surely would be met by a firestorm of angry suburbanites, residential and business and likely not gain sufficient political support.
Not necessarily, how about we base the rate on an average of the current suburban values, then they would still be paying about the same, but those with quality properies in the city would pay less, giving them incentive to stay and take care of their properties.
Those who are poor/lower income homeowners, especailly in the city, who's taxes would in theory go up, could and should be given some sort of income based break/exemption, with added incentives to improve the condition of their property. Then if they sell and "move up", the new owner is in the new system, unless he qualifies for an income based break.
Landlords (which I am by the way, but not of inner city or low quality properties) should be given just a short window to bring their properties up to some reasonable condition/value or loose any excemption based on the old value.
So obviously something like this would have to be phased in over a period of time. But it surely would be more fair and provide a more balanced revenue in addition to being an incentive against spraw and for urban renewal since new construction in the burbs would be taxed at the same rate as established properties in the city or exsisting denser suburbs.
Then build the mass transit.
Phoenix just broke a record by having 1.21 million rides in April, or about 55,000 daily trips for a network that just opened in December 2008. The original forecast was for 26,000 daily trips...
LightRailNetwork.com started a "Train Business Directory" in Phoenix and because of its success, the company is now in 13 cities in the Western U.S....
If you give people a place to go, they will ride...
RanLoot Phoenix just broke a record by having 1.21 million rides in April, or about 55,000 daily trips for a network that just opened in December 2008. The original forecast was for 26,000 daily trips...
RanLoot: Thanks for the reminder haven't been following Phoenix. Having spent many days in Phoenix the real indication there will be this summer. The heat is brutal at times. Many outfits basically shut down in the summer. If their ridership stays well above the original forecasts then I will say it is a great success much like Charlotte.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL In 1950 the population INSIDE THE BALTIMORE CITY LIMITS was 1.2 millon, today it is less than 700,000. Block after block is boarded up and once beautiful homes are slum lord rentals or vacant. Hundres of thousdands of people drive every day from the suburbs, some as far as 40-50 miles, to work in or near the city - what a waste of fuel and time - BUT, high taxes, high crime, bad shools and poor quality services have run the middle class out of the cities. Only the unemployable poor and the very rich in the best old neighborhoods remain - everyone else lives in the "counties". Find a way to fix this and it will make sense to invest in mass transit. Then there would be a reason to take back the neighborhoods in the city and live a good quality urban life (hopefully keeping some of them from moving out here). Sheldon
Find a way to fix this and it will make sense to invest in mass transit.
North Carolina does have a solution. A law that keeps the cities from decaying. It's a good law, but people are constantly trying to get it repealed. The law allows cities to involuntarily annex contiguous areas when they reach a certain population density. The result is cities get bigger and maintain their tax base.
When my house was built in 1978 it was 5 miles outside the city of Charlotte in the Town of Pineville. Now it is about a half mile inside the city. To give you a comparison, the Atlanta Metro Area is much larger than the Charlotte Metro Area, but the City of Charlotte is larger than the City of Atlanta because Atlanta does not have the ability to annex it's suburbs.
Commuting from suburb to inner city is as old as, well, NY, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago. Major rail lines were built just to accomodate the need to bring goods and services (i.e., commuter rail) or picked up those needs and services along longer haul lines. Commutes today in the NYC market can be over 100 miles for some either via highway or rail service. There are communal vans...a group buys a van and pays a driver...from Wilkes Barre/Scranton to NYC daily along with regular bus service. But the NYCity rail commuter services started the moment rail was laid inland to the shore of the North River in the 1830's and 40's. As time went on the commute was not from Newark but from as far away as Trenton, Bay Head, Washington and Branchville, NJ, the Delaware River Valley of PA; up the Hudson as far as Poughkeepsie, NY; northeast into CT as far as New Haven and Waterbury; and to the far eastern reaches of the North and South Shores of Long Island. One of the unremarked paramaters was set back in the 1960's (I think) when a judge stated a two hour commute was not unreasonable for a person on unemployment in a Long Island case. Thus the commuter pattern was reset for some. All metorpolitan areas actually went through similar periods of growth and spread; the interstate highway and other road building boom of the 50's through 80's helped while taking away the commuter rail passenger. Today not only is there a resurgence in the need and use of commuter rail (despite numbers being down because of the economy) in the older metropolitan areas and a realization that it is needed in areas where it either had not been before or has been so long gone it has been forgotten. And as we learn about and deal with pollution, congestion, lack of land, and all the other attending problems of metropolitan areas, the more we find rail as a logical and long range economical answer to moving people again.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.