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.
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.
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.
I'm sure others will have views on this subject.
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.
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.
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.
.
The single line we have here in Charlotte is operating at levels far beyond the original estimates.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.