The so-called myths of light rail...which may actually be true

Seattle never 'misses a chance to miss a chance' on light rail

The only thing keeping it from succeeding here are the myths propagated by foes, says this economics journalist. Here's a line-by-line debunking.
By Jon Talton
October 23, 2008.

At least two big rail transit measures are on the ballot around the country this November, maybe more. In Seattle, voters will be asked to approve light-rail expansion. And in California, there's a truly transformative measure to build a high-speed rail network.

Both will probably fail, both due to the financial crisis but, sadly, also to the pervasive myths and muddled thinking that keep America frozen with an increasingly unworkable 1965 transportation network. This post will attempt to take a few of these on:
Myth #1: The problem can be solved by adding more buses.

Many people who claim to support transit advocate expanding bus service, saying buses are cheaper and more flexible. Unfortunately this is also the bait-and-switch position of anti-rail, anti-transit forces — they will initially support bus transit but then oppose actually funding it. In any event, while buses have their place, they are not enough for a balanced, multi-modal 21st century transportation system.
Reality

Buses get stuck in the same traffic congestion that snarls cars — and politicians will never create enough bus-only lanes to alleviate this. In downtown Seattle, a bus-rider's heaven, buses are routinely clotted up, even with bus lanes. Your bus is not only late, but it can be the fourth or fifth one back in a line stopped to take on passengers. Good luck getting there if you walk slowly. Buses with stairs are hard for many people to enter. And buses have a stigma in many communities. As I say, buses have a valuable place. But they can't replace rail for reliability, ease of entry, ease of riding, rider appeal, and passenger-miles-per-unit of energy.
Myth #2: Pave, baby, pave.

We've been adding more roads for years, and traffic congestion just keeps getting worse. Metro Phoenix is a laboratory example of this. But the phenomenon was first noted with the parkway construction and other car-based projects of Robert Moses in New York in the 1930s: These roadways actually become "congestion generators." Nevertheless, this is the American mindset. In supposedly "green" Washington state, the Republican candidate for governor promises to build and widen roads, and he's neck-in-neck in the race.
Reality

But the case against more roads goes deeper than the fact that wider freeways, etc., often just don't work. The automobile is a key factor behind metropolitan air pollution and global warming. Now it is going to be a victim of peak oil. Any replacement vehicles will be much more expensive than the internal combustion engine running on light sweet crude that was abundant in 1965, but will grow less so every year ahead. So we're going to need transportation alternatives.
Myth #3: Public transit is too costly.

The news media and the conservative "think tanks" obsess about the price tag of transit projects (an exception is this LA Times endorsement). They never talk about the real costs of freeways and roads — not just the nominal price of paving, etc., but the huge, embedded expenses associated with increased pollution, increased warming, loss of farmland and natural habitat to sprawl and the destabilization of neighborhoods and urban cores.
Reality

Highways actually don't pay for themselves. And there's not a transportation system in the world that isn't subsidized (look at our serial airline crises, and this with a host of hidden subsidies already). It just matters how a society sets its priorities. Thus, Europe has advanced bullet trains, intercity trains, light rail networks, subways — and China is building them. Several European city-pair routes have seen high-speed rail kill off the (more polluting) airline competition. Cost? These projects only get more expensive every time America refuses to build a system.

The more troubling aspect of this argument brings us back to the poisonous and decadent myth that has been foisted on the American people since 1981 that tax cuts are free, and they can get something for nothing. If previous generations had followed this bread-and-circuses illogic, we wouldn't even have a nation. Public works are the foundation of an advanced civilization, and "the free market" alone won't provide for the public good. Government intervention, starting with Abraham Lincoln, created the transcontinental railroad. It built the airline system, even as passenger railroads were taxed to death. It built the Interstate highway system. All this without a second peep about that extra dime or quarter from the average taxpayer. Now we face entirely new competitive and indeed civilizational survival realities, but "it costs too much."

Another aspect of cost that gets no attention is how well-funded (and well concealed) the opposition is. The sprawl, road-building, oil, and auto industries have been successfully defeating transit initiatives for decades. Conservative "think tanks" (i.e., advocacy groups grinding out fake research that always supports their position), also very lavishly funded, have a fetish against transit — something about the fear of maybe riding in the same rail car as a brown person. On the other hand, there is no big money, pro-transit lobby in this country.
(Seattle-specific) Myth #4: It's not perfect enough.

Seattle never misses a chance to miss a chance to build a great mass transit network — all the while bemoaning how far behind Portland it is. And no measure put before voters reaches the desired perfection — as if that happens anywhere.
Reality

Large public works usually have to make political and other compromises. That happens in democracies. The Tennessee Valley Authority could have been "better" — but it turned out pretty damned good. Now, the Sound Transit measure takes a long time to build out. Well, that's because backers are terrified of asking voters to approve more money to build it faster. At least it's a start.
Myth #5: People won't ride it.

Huh?
Reality

Amtrak ridership is at records, and this with a vastly underfunded system. It was amazing watching the every-other-day train stop at 3 a.m. in Cincinnati — once a major passenger rail hub — and a crowd of people waiting to get on.

Imagine how it would work with a convenient and frequent set of trains on high-speed roadbed. Amtrak corridor service in such places as California, the Northeast, the Northwest, even Michigan, is doing especially well. Light-rail systems routinely break ridership projections. This is not 1965. America is denser, more urban, and many people are sick of driving. They long for alternatives.

So here we go again? Can we still build a 21st century civilization in the United States? Maybe a President Obama will start to turn things around. A President McCain promises to defund Amtrak, and that's just the start.

Jon Talton is a freelance writer and business columnist for The Seattle Times. A journalist for nearly 30 years, he blogs regularly at Rogue Columnist, where this post first appeared.
View this story online at: http://crosscut.com/2008/10/23/transportation/18584/

Phoenix's Light Rail Literally Starts to Crack

Light-rail cracks: Who is at fault?

Casey Newton
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 15, 2008 12:00 AM
With the cause of the light-rail system's cracks identified, attention shifted on Friday to who is responsible for the damage.

A consultant found that the use of plasma torches caused rails to break throughout the Valley's light-rail system, but Metro light rail hasn't determined who authorized their use during construction of the $1.4 billion project.

Repairing and replacing damaged rails from central Phoenix to Mesa will cost up to $1 million, Metro light-rail Chief Executive Rick Simonetta said Friday at a news conference.
advertisement


Metro light rail will ask the companies responsible for the use of torches to pay for the damage.

The work is not expected to cause the project to go over budget or miss its scheduled Dec. 27 opening, Simonetta said.

Meanwhile, light-rail crews are working to repair and replace 17 damaged areas and may need to replace up to 15 more, said Brian Buchanan, Metro's director of construction.

Contractors improperly used torches to create drainage for the light-rail system, weakening the steel, according to a report from Zeta-Tech Associates. When temperatures dropped this winter, the rails contracted, pulling apart in nine places and leaving gaps of up to 7 inches in the line. The light-rail agency has called a meeting with the firm that designed the system, Parsons Brinckerhoffer Americas, and with the construction administrator, whose job includes quality control. The construction-administration contract belongs to a joint venture between Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan Inc. and PGH Wong Engineering.Metro light rail is in a delicate position as it tries to recoup its losses from those responsible even as those same consultants work to finish construction. Metro officials did not refer to any of its consultants or contractors by name on Friday, acknowledging an effort to settle the issue amicably.

"We want to do that in as peaceful a way as possible," Simonetta said.

He added that the relatively inexpensive cost to fix the system will make it easier to get the money back.

"Assigning that responsibility gets a little easier when it's not a hundred-million-dollar problem," he said.

Metro light rail is reviewing construction documents to determine who told contractors to use the torches, Buchanan said. Metro does not typically monitor construction practices in the field, he said.

Judy Cooper, a spokeswoman for Parsons Brinckerhoffer, declined to comment Friday on the firm's construction methods.

"All questions relating to that project need to go back to the client," Cooper said, referring to Metro light rail.

Post, Buckley and PGH Wong did not respond to requests for comment.

Officials at Metro light rail cast the Zeta-Tech report in a positive light, saying the problem was limited in scope and could be fixed relatively easily.

"The good news is this is not really turning out to be a very time-consuming or very expensive process," Simonetta said of the repair effort.

Still, the damaged rails have brought about unwanted delays as Metro light rail enters its final months of construction on the 20-mile starter line. Metro suspended high-speed testing of trains along Washington Street, where some of the damage was discovered. The testing is scheduled to resume next week.

Officials would not speculate on who was responsible for allowing torches to be used on the project, beyond saying that Metro light rail had been unaware of the practice.

"Somebody probably asked permission to use a plasma cutter, and somebody said that doesn't sound too bad, as long as we follow up and do the right thing," Simonetta said. "We just were not involved in those kinds of decisions."

Metro light rail Chairman Tom Simplot pledged to hold any negligent parties accountable for the rail damage.

"If a mistake was made, those responsible will be paying for that mistake," said Simplot, a Phoenix councilman.

About 96 percent of the project is finished, officials said, with one mile of rail left to lay.

Light Rail worsens traffic and air pollution

Laissez Faire Institute September 2006
Issue Brief
Why Light Rail Is Bad for Scottsdale

Highlights
o using tax dollars to build light rail will mean
the loss of 20 lane miles of streets for every
mile of light rail track laid
o annual cost for a daily light rail commuter is
over $6,000
o light rail traffic fatality rates per passenger
mile are more than twice as high as bus
fatality rates
o traffic congestion and air pollution would be
worse if light rail is built
o a decision to go forward with light rail will
cost the community jobs and income


Too much money is allocated to LRT
Based on the ridership forecasts made by MAG and Valley Metro, light rail (LRT) will account for an average of two-tenths of 1% of the travel over the next 20 years. Scottsdale’s transit ridership is below average. Spending a billion dollars to build a Scottsdale light rail line is spending too much money for too little in return. Allocating so much of our tax dollars to LRT is disproportionate and will result in neglect of needed road improvements.

Foregone road improvements
The dollars spent to build each mile of light rail could be used to build more than 20 lane-miles of city streets. Considering that over 99% of the travel will be using roads, this is a heavy price to pay to serve the two-tenths of 1% who will be using light rail.


Light rail rides are too expensive
Valley Metro reports that the cost per passenger trip (i.e., each time one person boards the trolley) for light rail is more than $13. The
annual cost for a daily light rail commuter is over $6,000. The passengers certainly wouldn’t be willing to pay this much for their own rides. Why should taxpayers who will never ride the train be forced to pay so much?

Roads deliver better value
Based on the traffic and ridership
forecasts made by MAG and Valley Metro, the
tax cost to move one person one mile by light
rail is more than a dollar. The tax cost to move
one person one mile by streets is 6 cents. Taxes
spent on light rail give us far less service per
dollar spent.

Light rail is dangerous
Light rail traffic fatality rates per passenger mile are higher than bus fatality rates and are even higher than urban automobile fatality rates. Light rail serious crime rates are eight times higher than the bus service it would displace. Replacing bus service with light rail will degrade the community’s safety.

Light rail will cost jobs and retard prosperity
The source of economic growth is profit.
Investments that make a profit grow. This creates
more jobs and wealth for the people of the
community. Investments that generate losses
consume wealth and eliminate jobs. Light rail
generates huge losses and survives only via a
parasitic relationship with taxpayers.
Consequently, a decision to go forward with light rail is a decision that will cost the community jobs and income.

So-called performance standards a delusion
The light rail lobby claims that LRT
performance will be monitored. However, there
are no identified performance standards. No transit official is able to define the boundary between a successful and unsuccessful system. The national standard for a “successful” system is simply one that can get and spend tax dollars. No cost is ever deemed too high. No number of riders is ever deemed too low. Phoenix’s light rail proposal made it to “highly recommended” status with the Federal Transit Administration because it imposed a tax to help fund the system, not because it is cost-effective.

LRT is a failure everywhere
There is no city in America where light rail operates at a profit. The highest share of traffic for any light rail system in America is 1% (Portland, OR). Such small shares of travel demonstrate the failure of light rail to make a significant contribution to meeting transportation needs. Testimonials from the tiny fraction of the population that use light rail are not a useful guide to decision making. Why wouldn’t these riders be satisfied? Taxpayers are picking up 90% of the cost of their rides.

Light rail worsens traffic and air pollution
The Central Phoenix/East Valley Light
Rail Project: Final Environmental Impact
Statement prepared by Valley Metro shows that
both traffic congestion and air pollution would
be slightly worse if light rail is built compared
with not building it. How can we justify
spending billions of tax dollars to worsen these
urban problems?

Impact on Daily Traffic
Auto Speeds Build No Build
Region 22.3 mph 22.4 mph
Corridor 17.7 mph 17.9 mph
Source: This is a composite of tables S-8 & S-9 in the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement (Valley Metro)

Conclusion
The light rail lobby has seduced city-
after-city to sign-on to eternal deficits in order to
build and operate these systems. Scottsdale
should not follow this Pied Piper of waste. There
is no need to panic or give in to the bullying and
special interest pleading of the transit lobby.

Carbon Monoxide Parts/Million in Year 2020
No-Build Build Light Rail Impact of Build Option
Average One Hour Levels 6.5 6.8 +0.3
Average Eight Hour Levels 4.6 4.8 +0.2
Source: Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement (Valley Metro), p. 4-51.

This document was published by the Laissez Faire Institute, 828 N. Poplar Court, Chandler, Arizona 85226; (480) 940-9824;