|
Rail v Freeway per City
AGAINST RAIL Opponent Organizations
 |
FOR RAIL |
From 1982 to 2000 (summary) in
the 75
urban areas studied, passenger-miles of travel increased over 85
percent on the freeways and major streets and about 25 percent on the
transit systems.
Relevant ANTI-TRANSIT "MYTHS":
Transit
is not important because its market share is so small. -
they say
Ridership declined by about two-thirds in the last 50
years, from 23 billion annual trips to between eight and nine billion in
recent years. From 50 percent in 1945 to barely 2 percent by 1995."
THE RESPONSE:-"Only about half of
American households have transit available, and only about one-quarter
have transit available that they consider "satisfactory." People
cannot ride what isn't there. Moreover, transit has never carried a
large share of certain types of trips, such as shopping trips -- which
today are the single largest category of "total trips."
Read the
full response
New Urban Rail Not Justified
Transit is competitive only with respect to a small
portion of the urban travel market. New rail transit systems can make no
material contribution to reducing traffic congestion.
Light rail has been demonstrated to be incapable of
materially reducing traffic volumes in downtown oriented corridors
As
with virtually all of the rail systems built in the last quarter century,
traffic congestion will continue to worsen in the rail corridors.
Transit is funded at $26 billion annually.
Over 10 million Americans use transit for their daily work commute.
Another 25 million people use transit less frequently. 150 million annual
transit trips. (Those 10 mil are not doing 400 commutes per year?) So
that's $173 a trip.
The Positive Impact of Transit Investments |
Center for Transportation Excellence
Responding to Wendell Cox
The Positive Impact of Transit Investments
TWELVE ANTI-TRANSIT "MYTHS":
PDF: http://www.apta.com/info/online/weyrich3.pdf page 54. The authors, (one voted for Pat Buchanan), call
anti-transits "Troubadours"
|
In Sacramento the
percentage of those who use light rail is only in single digits yet it
represents about 50 percent of the region’s overall transportation
budget. Light rail generated $6.3 million in fares in FY 1999, compared to
operating costs of $17 million
Its cost $20 to $30 million a mile. For that money
per mile you could buy 60 to 90 buses, clean fuel, low air pollution
buses, that don’t have any infrastructure, don’t have tracks to run
on, have fairly low capital and operating costs, and you can make them go
wherever you want them to go.
In Sacramento, “light rail is a huge
expenditure” which diverts 40 to 50 percent of all available
transportation funds into “a very limited system.” Estimated costs for
one six-mile stretch of light rail into south Sacramento are $200 million,
money that’s not now available for fixing roadway problems. |
|
The Los
Angeles urban area, today, is far more concentrated than even
metropolitan Seattle or Portland - 5,800 people per square mile. An
ambitious, horrifically expensive effort to serve LA with rail has been an
unmitigated disaster.
Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority is now under federal court
order to quit raising rail fares . It must put hundreds of buses back into
operation, improve service, and reduce bus fares.
http://www.geocities.com/marinrescue/MythicalUrbanSprawl.htm
http://open-spaces.com/article-v3n2-bundy.php
The
Los Angeles urban
area, today, is far more concentrated than metropolitan Seattle or Portland -
5,800 people per square mile. Immense determination, political courage,
and policy discipline would be necessary for Seattle
or Portland to match that density two
generations hence. And an ambitious, horrifically
expensive effort to serve LA with rail has been an
disaster in that still widely distributed
region.
Capital
expenditures on new rail systems often drain
resources from lower-cost but more effective alternatives. Nowhere has this been more clear than in Los Angeles, where the damage
to bus ridership from the diversion of resources to rail far exceeds any
ultimate benefit expected to be derived from rail, a situation that
recently provoked a civil-rights lawsuit.
(The suit was brought on behalf of low-income and ethnic minority citizens
and bus drivers, represented by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transit Authority is now under federal court
order to quit beggaring service and raising
fares for low-income bus riders while lavishing resources on up-scale
train riders. It must put hundreds of buses
back into operation, improve service, and reduce bus fares. The roughly 15% of LA MTA patrons on the trains [average income $65,000] have
been the beneficiaries of 45 percent of the subsidies, while the 85
percent on the buses [average income less than $15,000] have received 55
percent-or roughly one-fifth the level of per-ride transit subsidy.) |
As a significant point of
reference, ACE ridership (consisting mostly
of commuters going relatively long distances to Silicon Valley) is 2,300 a day, with three inbound
trips to San Jose and two outbound trips to Stockton. Metrolink’s Ventura line from Oxnard to downtown Los
Angeles currently carries 3,500 daily weekday riders, up from
1,600 when the service began in September 1992. The Coaster now handles
4,500 weekday riders from Oceanside to
downtown San Diego, up from 1,900 per day at
inception in March 1995.
|
Quoting the St Louis Police Chief is hardly a scientific
argument. St. Louis light
rail http://www.tppf.org/veritas/vol3_issue2/wendellcox.pdf
The $400 million St. Louis light rail line, considered by many to be the
most successful new line in the nation, has had virtually no impact on
adjacent freeway traffic volumes. The reason is not just that light rail
is inherently ineffective, it is rather that the primary destination it
serves is no longer so dominant.
In LA, Denver and St.
Louis express bus riders transferred to
automobile use for travel to downtown because of longer trip times
as a result of a forced transfer to light rail and funding
withdawl from busing.
St. Louis Analysis to Factor Out Double Counting http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-stlpm.htm
from Implementation of Light Rail - In Passenger Miles:
1990-1995,
Between 1990 and 1995, St. Louis opened a
light rail line that accounts for an inordinately large percentage of
boardings (approximately 25 percent). During the same period other public
transport systems opened new rail lines or expanded rail services, but in
no metropolitan area was the rail ridership high enough in relation to
existing services to significantly move passenger "boarding"
figures upward.
Ridership in St. Louis had declined by 35+ percent from 1980 to 1990. The
Bi-State Development Agency undertook an aggressive program to coordinate
bus and rail services, truncating many routes at light rail stations. As a
result, many trips that formerly required a single boarding now require
two boardings, as transfers are forced from buses to light rail. This
effect is to exaggerate the apparent increase in total transit boardings
and per capita boardings. In fact Boardings per capita increased 12.8% not
25% but a more meaningful figure is "Passenger-Miles per Capita"
.
A review of passenger mile data indicates the extent of the exaggeration.
From 1990 to 1995, passenger miles increased 3.3
percent, considerably less than the 15.4 percent increase in boardings.
From 1990 to 1995, passenger miles per capita
increased 1.1 percent, instead of 13.4 percent.
The other major transit authorities include Cleveland’s
GCRTA, with an annual reported ridership of 64 million vs. 29 million
actual riders; Cincinnati’s SORTA with 27
million vs. 12 million; Dayton’s MVRTA with
15 million vs. 6.6 million; Akron’s METRO
with 8.2 million vs. 3.7 million; Toledo’s
TARTA with 4.6 million vs. 2 million; and Canton’s
SARTA with a reported ridership of 1.7 million but only 775,000 actual
riders per year. in millions.
Using APTA’s
figures, a proposal’s Actual number of riders
should be calculated as 45 percent of the Reported estimated
ridership. http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/
Center for Quality Growth
The
St. Louis Metrolink Tax Where Did All the Money Go? |
St.
Louis MetroLink, the St. Louis metropolitan region's light rail
system, operates on a 17-mile line. The system opened on July 31, 1993.
Read
more |
In 1950
metropolitan Seattle averaged over 5,000 people per square mile; in1990 the
average was roughly 3,000, just like Portland. This decrease in density is supposed to be reversed by
recent Growth Management Policies - ( adherence to urban boundaries, urban
in-fill, smaller lots, and greater use of apartments and
condominiums) -This could moderate this trend towards less density,
with sufficient political will and planning. But that is a very long-term
strategy, because the built environment changes slowly. The evolution from
a density averaging 5,000 to 3,000 people per square mile took 40 years.
Now zoning codes, stipulated lot sizes, spacious single family homes, and
height restrictions are embedded, and average family size is smaller. To
significantly re-concentrate the built environment and "densify"
the people who occupy it, poses a formidable challenge, even if the
region's county and municipal councils had the resolve to pursue that
goal. Portland is nationally famous for its pioneering growth management
policies, yet after three decades its population density is utterly
conventional for an American city.
It makes sense to curb sprawl and use land more efficiently. It is
critically important to protect environmentally sensitive areas, and
desirable to maintain existing forests and farmlands. The provision of
bicycle and walking paths, and easy access to transit facilities for those
who prefer and need them, are desirable objectives. But the ability of rail transport to contribute to such
constructive goals is negligible to
nonexistent. Rather, these intrinsically attractive amenities have been
disingenuously highjacked, and used to promote an outdated, inflexible, noisy, capital-intensive, ruinously
expensive-to-operate rail system-with the
unstated premise that good urban design can exist only by imposing immense
costs on taxpayers. It is akin to the advertising stratagems of clever
auto-makers and cigarette companies that hype themselves and promote their
own ends by shrewdly associating their names with gorgeous scenery, macho
guys, and beautiful women.
Seattle's Link
light rail system promises to set a new standard for extravagance and
inefficiency. Who is it that signs off on these extravagant rail systems,
imploring voters, assigning funds, lobbying congress? Local government
officials: mayors, county executives, council
members. Who is it that zoned the land for sprawl? The exact same institutions, and by and large they're
still doing it. Having caved to the pressures to zone for sprawl, now they
cave to the pressures to spend for rail - hence pleasing land developers, the
construction industry, and rail buffs alike. It's
not a bad strategy for staying in power, but it doesn't offer much as a
response to traffic congestion.
|
Effects
of Light Rail Transit in Portland: Implications for Transit-Oriented
Development Design Concepts:
The Role of Changing Technologies http://www.upa.pdx.edu/CUS/PUBS/docs/DP97-7.pdf
Gordon and Richardson (1995, 1997) respond to this question by
arguing that the proponents of compact development have
overestimated the costs of sprawl. These analysts conclude that
continued improvements in transportation and communications will in
fact obviate the need for concentrated settlement patterns. Tietz
(1996) points to the possibilities of ever-greater global
communications promised by increasing electronic interconnections. A
new community is emerging — one that does not rely on front-porch
interchanges with passersby, but instead on electronic connections
from bedrooms and living rooms across the globe. Genevieve Giuliano
notes that there are several reasons why the relationship between
land use and transportation may not be as strong as some planners
want to believe. Perhaps most significant is her conclusion that “transportation
is of declining importance in the locational decisions of households
and firms. Transport costs make up a relatively small proportion of
household expenditures, and increasingly flexible work arrangements
(including telecommuting) are likely to make access to workplaces
even less important in the future” (1995, 8-9).
Conclusions
Based on the empirical analysis, three positive impacts of eastside
Light Rail Transit, LRT were observed. One is that households in the
outer portion of the rail corridor are less auto oriented. The
second is that households in the outer part of the rail corridor are
also more likely to use transit. The third is a bidding up of
single-family housing prices near rail stations in the outer part of
the rail corridor. All three of these impacts may be linked to
self-selection or residential sorting of households more prone to
use transit. The empirical analysis of multifamily housing
development and density change in the eastern suburban area of the
Portland region served by light rail transit and conventional bus
transit provides evidence that light rail alone has not been
sufficient to change development patterns, auto ownership, and
transit modal behavior appreciably. Recognizing that zoning high
density around station areas may not be enough to increase the
impact of light rail, the Portland community of planners has
embraced the neotraditional planning approach, in an effort to “make
light rail work.” The New Urbanism’s higher densities and
mixed-use development will soon be tested in the political arena and
the economic marketplace. The extent to which these planning efforts
can reverse historic decentralization or halt the future trends
augured by changing improvements in transportation and
communications technologies remains to be seen. The risk that
neotraditional planners take in emphasizing the costly LRT component
of transit-oriented design is that they may ignore real, pressing
needs. A plan that puts expensive light
rail before expanded bus service, as well as highways and other
mobility improvements, risks ignoring the majority who do not live
near light rail transit or who, because of family and lifestyle
needs, require an automobile. By the
same token, an emphasis on multifamily housing risks resulting in
decreasing and unaffordable options for households who, because of
family and lifestyle characteristics, desire or require singlefamily
housing ( Different Drummer 1996, 60-61). Finally, most TOD planning
efforts target areas of new growth, thereby continuing to neglect
the serious and complex problems of the inner city, where the most
transit-using and transit-dependent people reside. The emphasis
becomes misplaced, chasing the elusive choice rider while
underserving the captive rider.
In the Portland area, the current mode split is roughly 90 percent
auto and 7 percent transit, but the regional transportation plan
calls for the majority of new transportation investment to be
devoted to transit. Even with reliance on an extensive LRT system
and supportive TODs and auto disincentives, the expected gain is a
large increase in transit ridership, but that translates to a small
shift in transit mode use, from 6.3 percent to 7.4 percent of all
trips in the region. This results in an unbalanced multimodal
investment strategy, one which will require a larger total
transportation investment than the region can afford if highway
capacity and other mobility improvements are to keep pace with
growth. The challenge to planners is to assess development trends
and consumer behavior. This assessment will provide the basis for
estimating market shares for dispersed and concentrated development
forms. There is undoubtedly a market for higher densities and
mixed-use development. No doubt, there is a segment of the
population that prefers multifamily living and traveling by transit.
The challenge is to identify this segment and to enhance their
options without ignoring the needs of other segments of the
population. At the same time, planners are challenged to respond to
concerns about the environment and inequitable housing through a
multifaceted approach, which includes TODs, but also includes more
direct measures and reforms, including pricing.
This assessment of LRT impacts in Portland is both encouraging and
sobering. It identifies some emerging trends in residential
location, but the overwhelming trend toward auto use and
decentralization serves to caution against overly optimistic
assessments of large impacts. |
|
Seattle
& Portland
Tri-Met, the Portland metropolitan transit agency, operates a 33-mile MAX
light rail system. The first segment - Eastside MAX - was opened in 1986;
the second segment - Westside MAX - opened in 1998. The entire route has
50 stations.
http://www.cfte.org/images/success_portland.pdf
Westside
Max Celebrates Two Years on Track2000 Those two years have seen 16
million riders, with daily averages now above 71,000, a level not expected
until 2005. Light-rail
advocates have dropped the claim that train service will stop or
significantly ease street and freeway congestion. But Portland Mayor Vera Katz told those at the
gathering that this area is the only one in the nation where the
percentage of transit use is growing faster than the percentage for
vehicle miles driven, according to federal statistics.
PORTLAND IS A FALSE SUCCESS?Cox’s attack on Portland’s strategy of marrying transit
and land use seems to be intended
to show Portland is a false model, not something for other cities to learn
from. He believes sprawl and decentralization are inevitable and blithely
dismisses the litany of Portland’s significant accomplishments with
containing sprawl, growing transit riders and
revitalizing the central city as hollow marketing success |
Light Rail ridership does not
even equal a freeway lane?
COX MYTH: "An analysis of actual US data on all new light rail
systems indicates that
no system carries more than 1/3 of the volume of a single freeway
lane." |
FACT: During rush hour,
Portland’s Eastside Light Rail line is carrying on average 120 percent
of the peak hour capacity of the adjacent freeway lane.
Without the 2,900 people per rush hour carried on light rail, Portland’s Banfield freeway would be much more
congested and cars would spillover on neighborhood streets. The
capacity of the rail line can be easily expanded with the existing signal
system to 5,300 people per hour - whereas the parallel freeway has a fixed
capacity of 2,400 people per lane per hour and cannot be expanded without
significant costs and disruption. |
ALL TEXAS TRANSIT
STUDIESA Feasibility Analysis of San Antonio VIA's Light Rail
Plan It is estimated that light rail would remove no more than
one out of every 250 cars
 The Illusion of Transit Choice
(pdf) A decade in which every metropolitan area that built or
expanded rail lost transit market share should have ended the debate
The lowest possible cost for the light rail line in Texas is $46 million per
mile!)
Analysis Of Affordable Transportation Options For Austin
 | Similar to what happened in Portland:- In the 1983 campaign in support of a
one cent sales tax to fund Dallas DART,
many promises were made to Dallas
taxpayers. DART advertisements told Dallas taxpayers that light rail
offered the best hope for reducing traffic congestion, improving air
quality, and revitalizing downtown Dallas. Light rail has failed on
all three counts.
|
| Dallas
underestimated their construction costs by more than 60% (inflation
adjusted) ($17.8 million per mile estimate; $45 million per mile
actual). The original plan was incompletely and poorly conceived.
Subsequently, the people of the DART service area face the same
situation today with respect to the proposed bond issue.
|
| DART
overestimated light rail ridership by 455% even though it subsidizes
fares by almost 88% -- the highest fare subsidy ratio of any Texas
city. After the election, DART officials drastically reduced their
ridership projections.
|
| Light rail
has not reduced traffic congestion. Traffic congestion has risen 35%
since the light rail election, an amount 10% greater than the national
average increase and greater than any other Texas city (none of which
have light rail).
|
| Light rail
has not improved air quality in Dallas, because to do so would require
reducing traffic congestion, which DART has not done.
|
| Light rail
has not spurred development. Downtown Dallas, the core of the light
rail system, rather than being revitalized, has the second highest
office vacancy rate (32%) in the entire U.S. and by far the highest
among Texas cities.
|
| Latest
U.S. Transit Database figures show Dallas to be dead last among Texas
Transit systems in most measures |
|
Light Rail Success in Dallas, Denver,
Salt Lake and St. Louis |
http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/Publications/FocusonUtah/TransitTax/TransitTax.htm#Heading1
UTAH: UTA Rail Transit Does Not Reduce
Congestion
UTA predicts that, with the tax increase, it can triple transit ridership
by 2020. But it currently carries less than two-thirds of a percent of all
passenger miles in the Ogden-Salt Lake
region. Since auto driving is increasing even more than the tripling in
transit ridership, UTA would still carry less than 1.3% of all passenger
miles in the region. This is far too small a share for UTA to have any
significant effect on congestion.
UTA brags that it takes 81,000 cars off the road each day. This is
exaggerated, but even if true, it is insignificant compared with the 3.5
million auto trips taken in the region each day. UTA's light-rail line has
even less of an impact on traffic. The TRAX line takes so few cars off the
road that UTA would have to build a new line every month, at a cost of $4
billion per year, just to keep up with the growth of regional traffic.
Contrary to UTA's ads, people who don't use TRAX do not benefit from it in
any way. |
|
|
Over the past three decades Boston has added light rail
and commuter rail lines, and integrated its entire metropolitan transit
system. During that period, ridership has
remained essentially static, market share has diminished, and annual
transit subsidies have exploded from $30
million to $560 million per year-which still isn't enough to sustain
transit operations. |
|
| |
Denver
RTD's Light Rail line, the Central Corridor, provided the Denver
metropolitan area its first experience with Light Rail Transit when it
opened for revenue service on October 7, 1994 |
| |
Washington
DC.
Read more |
| |
San
Jose Guadalupe Light Rail Line signaled a turning point Read
more |
PortlandNo traffic congestion relief from rail?
COX MYTH: "There is no connection whatsoever between new urban rail
and traffic
relief."
"keeping pace with auto trips" - Wrong: Transit Market share was only +1% 1990 - 2000 |
FACT: New urban rail lines
have been effective tools to help manage congestion.
Community leaders have come to learn that you can’t build your way out
of congestion with roads or transit. New rail lines and road improvements
provide temporary relief, but then the roads fill back up. The result is
to relieve congestion, not to solve it.
Houston and Phoenix
are wonderful illustrations of communities that have discovered they can’t
spend enough billions of dollars on roads to solve congestion. The Phoenix metro area is presently investing $4.2
billion on new roads. Despite this massive investment in new freeway
capacity, congestion during commute times will actually be worse in 20
years. After investing billions in roads, both Houston
and Phoenix are actively pursuing new light rail systems to offer
citizens a balanced approach for managing congestion.
Portland. Westside MAX is demonstrating the
short-term congestion relief rail can offer.
Drivers will get out of their cars if they have an attractive choice for
avoiding the pains of congestion. According to an Oregon
Department of Transportation study, transportation improvements made in
the Westside corridor have increased transit trips, (keeping
pace with auto trips and traffic would be significantly heavier
without those improvements.
Looking at data collected between May 1993, October 1997 and May 1999,
they found “transit’s share of westbound trips leaving downtown during
evening rush hour increased 5 percent, while the share of drive alone auto
trips declined 3 percent. |
Minimal
impact since there are few new rail riders?
COX MYTH: “The impact on traffic congestion is even less, since on
average fewer
than 25 percent of light rail riders are former automobile drivers.
You dont need to read the "FOR", opposite. All they talk about
is how ridership is up. They make no specific ref. to "former auto
drivers". Deliberately skirting the issue. Reported ridership figures
have been proven to be inaccurate due to not accounting for double boardings. And anyway
the increase in customers is dwarfed by the huge increase in auto trips. |
FACT: New rail lines have
been successful in attracting new riders to transit and improving the
quality of service for existing riders. New riders comprise 45 percent of
riders in Salt Lake and 39 percent in Denver.
Rail systems are planned for both existing riders (bus riders) and
attracting new riders. A major benefit of rail is the ability to offer bus
riders superior quality service, and greater reliability from not being
stuck in traffic. And they do it at a lower operating cost per rider. The
myth is that somehow this is a problem.
Salt Lake. Prior to TRAX’s commencement of
service, UTA had projected an average weekday ridership of 14,000 people.
During TRAX’s first four months of operation ridership has greatly
exceeded the projected average weekday ridership of 14,000. While it was
expected that ridership would be exceptionally high during the holiday
season (25,000 - 32,000), the average weekday ridership for January,
February, March, and April was 19,039, 18,956, 19,742, and 19,210
respectively, much higher than projected.
Saturday ridership has also exceeded projections and even surpasses
weekday ridership with an average ridership of 22,561 (January), 23,138
(February), 23,591 (March), and 25,621 (April).
"We were always optimistic about TRAX, but its success has surpassed
even our expectations," said John Inglish. "We are especially
pleased with the success we have had in attracting new customers, who
represent almost half of our TRAX riders."
In order to gain an accurate profile of TRAX riders, UTA’s strategic
planning department surveyed approximately 2,000 riders during February.
Astonishingly, 45% of those surveyed indicated they were new transit
riders.
St. Louis MetroLink carried nearly 9 million
customers during its first year of operation; almost double the projected
ridership of 4.8 million passengers.
Before service began, ridership was projected at 12,000 per day. In August
of 1993, the system’s first month of operation, approximately 30,000
passengers rode MetroLink each day. In June, 1998, the average weekday
ridership topped 46,750 commuters.
Denver The portion of new riders on Denver’s
first rail line ranges from 39% on weekdays to 93% on weekends.
“On weekends, the proportion of new and previous RTD riders is vastly
different. On weekends, nearly all of the park-n-Ride users (93%) were new
riders while only 4% were previous riders. In addition, 92% of the weekend
park-n-Ride users are new RTD riders
who ride Light Rail compared to 39% of weekday park-n-Ride users.”
Denver, like virtually all new rail lines has
found a strong market for non-work trips in addition to the work trip,
meaning there is a greater opportunity to reduce dependency on the
automobile.
Portland When Portland opened its second rail
line, in the first year ridership in the corridor increased by 20,000
transit trips.
The addition of Westside MAX and improved bus service led to a 46 percent
increase in transit service in the corridor. Transit ridership in the
corridor rose 137 percent in 1999 to 33,900 average daily trips. |
Freeways are cheaper to
build?
COX MYTH: “On average the cost to build and operate motorways, including
private
auto costs, are 1/7th that of light rail per passenger kilometer
I think Cox specifically said "passenger
kilometer". Don't see that opposite do you? So you can assume Cox is
right here. If only we COULD fill trains to capacity, but far from it I'm
afraid. Now the question remains what is the comparison at Peak Periods
ONLY?
Change in Congested Peak-Period Travel, 1982 to 2000
Change in Travel During Congested Times, 1982 to 2000
in Person-Miles
1982 1994 2000 94-00
75 area
average
32 46
45 -1
Very large area average 37
45
48 +3
From 1982 - 2000, less than half (49 percent) of the roadway that was
needed to maintain a constant congestion level was actually added.
Hours Change in Annual Delay
per Peak Road Traveler, 1982 to 2000
Note that widening a freeway, one lane in each direction, in rural
areas is $5 per mile and is magnitudes cheaper than the equivalent rail
system. (Marin Rail's existing track and right of way is still more
expensive per passenger mile than a freeway lane). |
FACT: Urban freeways cost
significantly more to build than light rail.
In Portland, the Oregon State Department of
Transportation estimated the freeway alternative to a light rail project
would cost $1.74 billion more ($1.5 billion for 21 miles of rail verse
$3.24 billion for a 6 lane freeway) for a freeway of half the length and
half the capacity. |
|
Is light rail popular elsewhere in the U.S?
No. All five light rail tax elections in the U.S. in 1999 were
defeated soundly. Since 1988, 79% of light rail elections have been
defeated by an average margin of 14 percentage points even though
proponents outspent opponents by at least 12 to 1. More importantly, every
city that has light rail has defeated multiple ballot measures to expand
their systems.
Is there a cheaper way to get people out of their
cars?
"Busways" (new freeway and arterial lanes
dedicated for use by buses) would attract twice as many new transit
riders at one-fourth the cost of light rail. Houston
attracted new transit ridership at a cost less than one-fourth that of
Dallas through busways and express bus service.
Will light rail improve air quality?
Since so few automobile drivers switch to light rail, it has little or no
positive effect on air quality. Light rail stations are not within
walking distance (1/4 mile) from at least 99% of destinations in the urban
area. As a result, people must drive to rail stations. The nation's most
comprehensive and expensive new rail system (Washington,
D.C.) is credited with removing barely 1% of emissions in the area.
How long will the increased sales tax be in
place?
Forever. The proposed quarter cent tax will be permanent and will
cost taxpayers millions of $s per year, an amount which will grow each
year.
Is light rail less expensive than building
freeways?
No. According to TXDoT, local freeway construction costs are from
$4-12 million per (2-way) lane mile compared to the national average cost
of $70 million per mile for light rail. Additionally, nowhere in the
U.S. does light rail carry more than 1/3 of the actual passenger volume of
a single freeway lane. Source
http://www.tppf.org/lightrail/news/lightrail_facts.html
Rail deprives Transit-Dependent People
Providing rail transit on one route means denying bus improvements
on many other routes. Indeed, rail is so expensive that passage of the
sales tax increase and construction of more rail lines will probably lead
to less transit service (buses), overall.
Transit
Truths: http://www.publicpurpose.com/21stcent.htm
1. Autos are far less expensive (per passenger mile) than rail (which
is highly subsidized). For more than a quarter century, federal, state
and local policies have sought to entice people away from automobiles and
into public transit. More than $300 billion in public subsidies have been
expended to support transit --- this amount rivals what was spent to build
the entire interstate highway. The overall failure of these policies
rivals that of the "war on poverty."
2. Traffic congestion compared to what? Average Commuting Time on
transit is double that of automobiles. People just don't want a
lengthy walk from a station or have to wait for a connecting bus. So why
fight the people's transport of choice, the automobile.
3. A freeway lane carries 5 times the person-miles of a light
rail system .
4. Electric Rail absorbs more energy (per passenger mile) than auto,
believe it or not.
San Francisco Commuting:
1. LA and San Francisco's Commute
Miles Driven per Capita has remained the same over the 10 years (90-99).
Most other cities have steadily declined.
2. San Francisco already has more Suburban
Transit Boardings than any other US City. Yet boardings declined 7%
(90-95) like most other cities did. The city
cannot accommodate additional rail-boat commuters from Sonoma.Click to see the
Development Restriction Solution.
|
|
|
Disasterous Rail:http://open-spaces.com/article-v3n2-bundy.php
So why doesn't rail generally work
in American cities? The reason is
exceedingly simple: the technology
is far too expensive. Sound Transit
is setting out to serve the transportation needs of a far-flung region
with a light rail system estimated to cost $100 million per mile. People
have a complex set of destinations they need to reach: how extensive a
network can be formed at a cost of $100 million per mile? But unless the
transit system becomes a highly elaborated network,
it simply cannot get many people from where they are to
the myriad destinations to which they routinely travel.
Even buses fail to do the job well, and they're far better suited to
the task than trains are. They're less costly, more flexible, and
consequently forge a more intricate network of service. But
train promoters shamelessly use the shortcomings
of buses as an excuse to promote rail schemes. When they succeed, they
make an already inefficient transit system markedly less efficient, driving up costs, and driving down market
share. As Professor Richmond found, and reported in Transitory Dreams:
How New Rail Lines Often Hurt Transit Systems.
Rail dreamers can fantasize about
recreating the train-dependent human settlement patterns of the 19th
century, but it is absolutely impossible, for this simple reason: they're
not prepared to outlaw the competition, the automobile. So it's
the rail partisans' cumbersome, rigid, enormously expensive,
hard-to-get-to technology vs. a nimble, efficient, affordable, sexy,
instantly-available system of transport-the car-that comes equipped with
heat, air conditioning and stereophonic sound. See if you can pick the
winner.
|
|
| |
|
|
