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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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
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:
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.
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
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.