Light Rail Claims vs. Facts
The following is from Light Rail
Progress in Austin, Texas:
************************************
In a recent debate, light rail opponent Jim Skaggs, nominal head of the
anti-transit group ROAD (Reclaim Our Allocated Dollars), presented a number
of claims and arguments which apparently went unanswered or inadequately
answered. Light Rail Progress has been asked to respond to these points,
which have been recorded and forward by Barbara McMillin.
We believe these issues will be raised by light rail opponents in virtually
any city - certainly, any North American city. Light rail supporters may
well face these or very similar claims and arguments in cities such as
Cincinnati, Louisville, Orlando, Norfolk, Birmingham, Memphis, Tucson,
Hartford, Kansas City, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Indianapolis, Victoria ... to
name just a few urban areas seriously considering light rail transit (LRT).
Accordingly, we are sending this information to our entire list.
Light Rail Progress 09/22/00
************************************
CLAIM: “rail never comes in under budget...”
FACT: The MAJORITY of light rail projects have come in within or
even under budget.
Examples:
In Portland, both the original Eastside line project (1986, $214 million)
and the more recent Westside line project (1998, $964 million) were within
the agency's full-funding agreement with the Federal Transit Administration.
[Source: Center for Transportation Excellence website]
Denver: The nearly 9-mile-long Southwest light rail line to Littleton,
which opened in July, came in on target at a total cost of $177.7 million.
[Source: Denver Business Journal September 4, 2000]
Salt Lake City: According to the Utah Transit Authority Grants Administrator's
Office, the publicly budgeted figure for the TRAX LRT system was $312.5
million at the time the project was funded. The actual payout has been
almost exactly $300 - several million dollars UNDER budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM: “overall transit ridership is declining in U.S. ...”
FACT: US transit ridership has been SOARING and hitting records.
In 1999, ridership surged to a total of more than 9 billion trips, the
highest peak in annual ridership since 1960. Total ridership in 1999 was
4.5 percent higher than in the previous year.
That trend is continuing. For the first quarter of this year, the nation’s
public transportation systems have recorded a 4.8 increase in ridership
over the same period in 1999 [Source: APTA]
Light rail systems have been chalking up particularly impressive ridership
gains. Here are samples from the first quarter of 2000:
San Diego Trolley - 33.5% increase
Memphis (historic trolley) - 29.9% increase
Santa Clara VTA in San Jose - 23.9% increase
Denver’s Regional Transportation District - 19.1% increase
[Source: APTA]
[We suspect similar gains have been recorded in Canada, but this information
is not currently at hand.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM: “trains run 5 miles an hour...”
FACT: Modern LRT systems' typical average speed (with stops) usually
fall in the range of 20-25 mph.
It's important to put this in perspective.
Automobile in urban traffic: 23-25 mph
Local street bus: 11-13 mph
Downtown circulator bus: 5-9 mph
Here are some sample averages for LRT, based on schedules and line length:
Baltimore: 24 mph
Salt Lake City: 24 mph
Dallas: Red Line 21 mph, Blue Line 20 mph
SPECIAL NOTES: “Official” average speeds, often reported to
the FTA, may be lower, because these include the layover times at the
end of runs - which passengers don't experience. From the standpoint of
service to the public and competition with automobile traffic, average
speeds based on actual run time (schedule) and route length are more realistic.
Also, LRT national averages typically include a hodge-podge of older,
slower streetcar systems (e.g., Boston, San Francisco) and slow historic
systems (e.g., New Orleans, Memphis, Seattle, Detroit) as well as modern,
fast LRT systems. That gives opponents like Skaggs lots of (erroneous)
ammunition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM: “traffic problems will be worse with a train trying
to share an already crowded street...”
FACT: Traffic problems have NOT become worse in cities with light
rail running in arterials - such as San Diego, Sacramento, Portland, San
Jose, Calgary, Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas. Light rail, because of
upgrades to traffic-signal systems and predictable flow, can actually
introduce smoother traffic flow better synchronized with signal-light
cycles.
In Austin, existing street capacity will be maintained, even with LRT
installed. On major arterials like North Lamar, Guadalupe, and South Congress,
light rail will tremendously INCREASE the people-moving capability of
these arterials - both initially and ultimately.
According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, urban arterials like Lamar Blvd. and South Congress Ave. (routes
targeted for segregated light rail alignments) have lane capacity of up
to 600 passenger cars per hour, equivalent to 720 persons per hour (at
average occupancy of 1.2 persons/car). This would be exceeded by two 3-car
light rail trains alone, totaling perhaps 750 passengers.
Based on ridership projections, it can be noted that morning peak hour
trains on North Lamar would be carrying more than 2,000 passengers in
a single hour into Austin's core area - nearly 3 times the capacity of
adjacent arterial lanes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM: “he has ‘facts’ comparing lane miles to LRT number
of riders...”
FACT: This probably refers to the claim, circulated by Wendell
Cox and others, that a freeway lane carries more people than LRT.
This is pure hokum. Most modern LRT systems carry actual peak-hour volumes
equivalent to at least one or more freeway lanes.
Cox bases his claims on ideal, theoretical capacities of freeway lanes
- which the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) admits are never attained - and then compares this figure to
actual volumes on LRT (or volumes "melted" by faulty "numbers
voodoo" applied by transit opponents).
Example: Dallas's DART LRT system, which carries approximately 2,400 riders
in the maximum peak direction at the highest peak period.
Cox claims that “On average a freeway lane carries between 2,250
and 2,750 passengers during a typical peak hour (60 minutes).”
Cox consistently and drastically overestimates the capacity of freeway
lanes. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), the “derived service volume” of a single
freeway lane (one lane of 4, Level of Service C, 0.83 peak hour factor)
is 1,370 cars/hour. That is MORE than the DESIGN level, which, for 60
MPH operation, would be only 740.
We will use the “derived service volume” as that is a closer
measure of what freeways actually carry. (The 2000/hour figure repeatedly
used by Cox is a purely THEORETICAL value which AASHTO admits is NEVER
attained in practice.)
The AASHTO figure assumes no trucks. If we factor in, realistically, the
typical mix of 20% heavy trucks (Institute of Transportation Engineers),
the resultant volume (working capacity) is about 1100 cars/hour. At the
typical urban peakhour commuter occupancy of 1.1 person/car, that's about
1,200 PERSONS carried by the freeway lane.
**DART's light rail line is, therefore, at peak hour, carrying approximately
TWICE the capacity of a freeway lane, or about the capacity of 2 freeway
lanes.**
And that's just in the PEAK direction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM: “being able to supply everyone with a car -- that's
is how expensive rail is...”
FACT: It is pure subterfuge to imply that all transportation and
mobility problems for each potential (new) rider are solved simply by
providing a vehicle. What's this vehicle going to roll on - clouds? Where's
it going to be parked? Who's going to pay the cost of fuel? Repairs? Insurance?
Once you add all those costs, the cost per passenger-mile of driving a
car is far greater than that of riding mass transit - bus or rail (and
in comparable service deployments, rail is almost invariably cheaper than
bus).
The fully allocated costs of operating an automobile (including streets,
freeways, parking facilities, traffic control, etc.) amount to about $1.32
per passenger-mile. For light rail, the cost varies by facility, but typically
falls in the range $0.80-0.90 (in Austin, about $0.85).
NOTE: Details on these calculations are being prepared for release and
will be posted on the Light Rail Now/Progress website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM: “rail has no impact on mobility, air quality, or congestion...”
FACT: These recent statements by Capital Metro General Manager
Karen Rae address this issue:
>>
No one solution, whether it's roads or rail, will reduce congestion. We
believe a combination of mobility solutions, including light rail, high-occupancy
vehicle lanes, incident management and improved bus service, can slow
the growth of congestion.
Light rail is one of the only transportation solutions that removes cars
from the road. Think of the checkout lines at a crowded grocery store.
What happens when they open another lane? Even if you don't move to that
line, everyone gets through faster. The same will happen for drivers on
Interstate 35 or MoPac Boulevard when we "open" a light-rail
line.
<<
EL Tennyson also points out that “FTA [Federal Transit Administration]
... with help from Texas Transportation Institute, has determined that
rail transit DOES RELIEVE highway congestion by scientific measurement.”
Tennyson quotes the following summary from an FTA Policy Paper, USDOT
2000:
“Public transit is provided for several reasons, including basic
mobiity, congestion relief, and land use efficiency. The research concluded
that user benefits, net of costs and subsidies, nationwide (as of 1995)
for the aforementioned three categories were $ 6.44 (mobility), $ 3.07
congestion, and $ 9.82 (land use efficiency) per user.”
In other words, mobility and congestion-relief benefits, according the
the FTA, amount to nearly $10 per transit user.
Regarding the air pollution impact, Tennyson also points out:
>>
Metropolian areas with complete rail transit systems (several lines) consume
thirty (30) percent less motor fuel than cities relying only on bus transit.
That is a whale of a lot of difference. For Austin, with one million population
predicted, that will mean 130 million gallons of burnt fuel saved every
year, worth almost $200 million per year, plus any health benefits.
<<
The bottom line: LRT is an important element in a toolbox of measures
aimed at reducing air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM: “rail in Portland handles so few riders (he just went
there 10 days ago and rode the Portland line)...”
FACT: Ridership on the MAX light rail system in Portland recently
reached 74,000 boardings per day and is apparently still climbing. That's
a stunning achievement for a relatively small system. And for some special
events the LRT system appears to have handled approximately 80,000 rider-trips
per day (on 2 recent parade days, ridership totaled 160,000). [Source:
Portland Tri-Met]
MAX's accomplishment is even more impressive, compared to the bus system,
when one considers that the LRT system is carrying 26% of the Tri-Met
transit agency's total system ridership - about 1/3 the ridership of bus
operations - over a single 33-mile line made up of 2 routes, with 50 stations,
and only 72 vehicles, compared with 102 bus routes, serving over 8,200
bus stops, and running 664 buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM: “Austin has an inadequate road system and that money
is needed to build roads and HOV lanes -- a whole package of other items...”
FACT: Austin may need road improvements, but it does not compare
poorly to other cities. Austin has MORE state and federally funded (i.e.,
top-quality) lane-miles per capita than any other Texas city. [Source:
Based on TxDOT data]
Regarding HOV lanes, Capital Metro has already pledged over $90 million
to construct these, and may allocate more than twice that in addition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM: “the rail money needs to be spent on these items...”
FACT: Under current legislation, Capital Metro can allocate up
to 25% of its revenues on transit-related roadway projects. However, any
money diverted from transit capital projects like LRT will lose matching
Federal transit grants - a net loss to the city.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM: “Austin doesn't have sufficient density in comparison
to other cities that have rail (the only areas that had ... 20 people
per acre density which is what you need is the UT area and the UT apartment
area off Riverside)”
FACT: Several US cities with successful light systems have density
comparable to Austin's.
Here's a comparison of Austin's city population density (persons per square
mile), with that of several cities operating light rail installed within
the last 4 decades, taken from 1990 Census data:
|