Light Rail: comparing six West coast cities

April 2008

The Facts on Light Rail
A comparative analysis of light rail systems in six West Coast cities
by Michael Ennis
Director, Center for Transportation


Key Findings

As Washington cities consider whether light rail is right for them, this study on
the performance of the six existing systems on the West Coast provides factual, real life
examples of what taxpayers could expect here. Policymakers and the public should
consider whether diverting transportation taxes away from other programs and services
is worth the opportunity costs. Based on the data, this analysis concludes that it is not.
Often, public agencies try to estimate, with little success, how such a system in
Washington would perform. Through unrealistic modeling and ambitious assumptions,
they typically underestimate operating and capital costs, and overestimate revenue and passenger demand.

This is especially true with light rail systems.
For example, in 1996, Sound Transit officials in the Seattle area promised its first light rail segment would be completed by 2006 and would cost about $5 billion.1 Today, Sound Transit says the total cost is about $15 billion and the segment will not be
finished until around 2020.2

Analyzing the performance of existing light rail systems sidesteps these guesses and offers a factual picture.

There are six light rail systems on the West Coast that have been operating since
at least 1995: Los Angeles, Portland, Sacramento, San Jose, San Diego and San Francisco.
This study looks at their past performance and results in the following key findings:

• Light rail systems on the West Coast served only about 2% of the
workforce in the service areas of the six systems.
• On average, these systems only remove between 0.39% and 1.1% of
cars from the roadway.

• On average, West Coast light rail systems require taxpayer subsidies to
pay for 73% of operations and 100% of capital improvements per year.

• The average cost to add one additional rider to the light rail systems on
the West Coast is between $82,285 and $242,014 per rider.

• Attracting a new rider to light rail costs 16 to 47 times as much as
attracting a new rider to a traditional bus system.

1 Sound Move, The 10‐Year Regional Transit System Plan, May 1996. 2 Sound Transit, University Link Financial Plan, June 2006.

Washington Policy Center 2







• When accounting for passenger demand, light rail on the West Coast is
12% more expensive to operate than bus service.

• In the ten years between 1996 and 2005, the public subsidy (operating
costs only) for all light rail systems in the U.S. grew from $250 million to
$729 million. An increase of 191%.

• The relationship between light rail and any environmental or economic
development advantages is so slight that their use on influencing policy
decisions should be proportionally minor.

Examining the six existing light rail systems in major West Coast cities helps residents in the Puget Sound, Vancouver and Spokane understand what they could expect from spending on similar systems in Washington.

The most relatively efficient systems on the West Coast are San Francisco and
Portland. They move the most people for the least cost and beat the six‐city average in
most cases.

By a large margin, the worst‐performing system is San Jose. In every category, its performance is worse than the six‐city average.

Regardless of how each system ranks with another, the overall poor
performance of all six light rail systems on the West Coast shows that there is a very large gap between public costs and public benefits.
Even the best‐performing systems require a large taxpayer subsidy and have little or no affect on reducing traffic congestion. And on average, light rail is more expensive to operate than a normal bus service.
Policymakers and the public should consider whether diverting transportation
taxes away from other programs and services is worth the opportunity costs. Based on the data, this analysis concludes that it is not. There must be a stronger relationship
between public spending and congestion relief. Spending significant amounts of
transportation tax revenue on projects that have no influence on reducing congestion inevitably makes traffic worse.









Washington Policy Center 3






Introduction

As congestion continues to grow in major cities across the United States,
policymakers are looking toward light rail transit as a possible solution. In 1980, there were only nine light rail systems in the U.S.; today, there are twenty‐nine.3

In Washington, Puget Sound voters in 1996 approved the region’s first light rail segment by authorizing Sound Transit to build a line between the airport and North of Seattle. Last November, regional voters rejected Sound Transit’s proposed second
phase, which would have added another 40‐50 miles of light rail. Sound Transit officials are already planning to go to voters with a second measure.

In Clark County, public officials are considering a light rail system across a new
Columbia River bridge to Portland. And while Spokane voters recently rejected
continuing to look at light rail, officials there may yet try again to fund a system.

This study compares the performance of the six major West Coast cities
operating light rail since 1995. The cities are Los Angeles, Portland, Sacramento, San
Jose, San Diego and San Francisco. The following table summarizes key background data (2004) on each system.4

Six major cities on the West Coast with light rail, 2004 data

System Individual
Length, Light Rail Riders per Annual Operating Annual Farebox
in Miles Vehicles day5 Cost Revenue
Los Angeles 116.3 121 40,503 $111,654,300 $18,899,600
Portland 92.9 105 38,856 $56,965,800 $19,822,200
Sacramento 62.6 72 13,589 $35,225,800 $7,853,400
San Diego 97 123 32,718 $41,830,500 $24,196,900
San Francisco 72.9 181 55,710 $105,899,500 $21,473,700
San Jose 71.5 80 6,748 $45,752,500 $4,367,700
Source: National Transit Database





3 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Available at
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_transit_profile.html
4 Data adapted from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Rail Statistics. Available at:
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/rail/index.cfm
5 Light rail ridership is typically measured in unlinked trips. The American Public Transportation Association defines unlinked trips as “the number of passengers who board public transportation vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination.” Unlinked trips can double or triple count the same rider. In order to translate unlinked trips into individual daily riders, this report uses a conversion factor of 45%.



Washington Policy Center 4







Spending transportation taxes on light rail instead of traffic relief is a
controversial decision. Light rail opponents often argue it is too expensive for such little benefit, while supporters like its reliability and speed.

Based on its rapid growth across the country, light rail supporters are clearly
winning the public debate. Today, there are nearly 1,400 miles of light rail track in cities across the country with another 190 miles under construction.6
But analyzing the performance data of existing systems shows that light rail is not providing the benefits supporters so eagerly claim.
In a recent study by the Brookings Institution, On the Social Desirability of Urban
Rail Transit Systems, authors Clifford Winston and Vikram Maheshri argue that every
public transit rail system (25 at the time of the study) had a negative impact on social
welfare; meaning the average value of the service was less than the average cost to
society.7


Annual Net Social Cost of Rail to
Six Major West Coast Cities

Los Angeles $125 million
Portland $221 million
Sacramento $106 million
San Diego $29 million
San Francisco $250 million
San Jose $211 million

Winston and Maheshri show the annual
monetary social cost of rail to the host city. The
adjacent table shows these costs to the six major
West Coast cities that have had light rail since 1995.

As the authors point out, these negative impacts occur for two reasons: high costs (capital and operating) and low passenger demand.

As with any public transit system, passenger fares only recover a minor percentage of the total operating costs and no capital expenditures. In
1995, the public subsidy (operating costs only) for all light rail systems in the U.S. was
$250 million. In 2005, public assistance grew by 191%, to $729 million.8 Combining both capital and operating costs, the public subsidy for light rail in 1995 was $938 million. In 2005, the subsidy grew to $3.2 billion.9
As with most public services, taxpayers will tolerate high costs as long as they think their purchase results in a proportional benefit. Winston and Maheshri show that rail transit fails to produce this return on investment. And comparing the performance of the six systems on the West Coast indicates they are right.

6 APTA, 2007 Public Transportation Fact Book. Available at
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/factbook/documents/section_19_rail_pages_63_to_79.pdf.
7 C. Winston, V. Maheshri, On the social desirability of urban rail transit systems, Journal of Urban Economics, 2006.
8 APTA, 2007 Public Transportation Fact Book. Available at
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/factbook/documents/section_19_rail_pages_63_to_79.pdf.
9 Ibid.



Washington Policy Center 5






Light Rail Demand is Low

Ridership is generally the best factor for measuring the success of any transit
service, and light rail is no different. If passenger demand is high enough, then the space between cost and benefits is small. Likewise, if passenger demand is low, then the space between cost and benefits is high.
Consider the following table that compares the combined working populations of the six major west coast cities with their respective light rail passenger demand in 1995, 2000 and 2005.


Combined Daily Light Rail Ridership: Los Angeles,
Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose & Portland

12,000,000
1.06% 1.69% 1.97%
10,000,000

8,000,000

6,000,000

4,000,000

2,000,000

0
1995 2000 2005





Combined Daily Light Rail
Ridership
Combined Working Population


The combined regional working population of the six West Coast cities that have light rail was about 10.7 million people in 2005.10 The number of daily riders using light rail in the same cities in 2005 was about 206,694 per day.11 This means only 1.97% of all workers within those cities choose to use light rail in any given day.




10 Population data adapted from the Federal Highway Administration. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/jtw8.htm.
11 Light rail ridership is typically measured in unlinked trips. The American Public Transportation Association defines unlinked trips as “the number of passengers who board public transportation vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination.” Unlinked trips can double or triple count the same rider. In order to translate unlinked trips into individual daily riders, this report uses a conversion factor of 45%.


Washington Policy Center 6






Light Rail Does Not Reduce Congestion

For transit to appreciably reduce traffic congestion, it must shift a large number of drivers from the roadways to its system.
It is unlikely the 206,694 daily riders on West Coast light rail systems in 2005 translate to an equal number of cars that would otherwise be on the roadway. Most light rail riders come from the existing bus systems.

For example, Sound Transit officials in Seattle estimated that nearly two‐thirds of its ridership would have come from the existing transit system if its second phase had been approved in 2007.12
206,694 cars are not insignificant but there are about 18 million vehicles in the six regions studied.13 Assuming two‐thirds of passenger demand draws from existing public transit, the light rail systems on the West Coast shift a miniscule 0.39% of cars off the roadway. Assuming every rider translates to one vehicle, then light rail still only
removes 1.1% of cars from the roadway.

In either case, passenger ridership on light rail is not nearly great enough to
reduce traffic congestion. In fact, it can be argued that diverting such a large proportion of transportation tax revenue to light rail takes money away from and weakens
programs that actually reduce congestion.

Per‐Rider Cost is High

Accounting for passenger demand shows the eye‐popping cost required to add one additional rider to a light rail system on the West Coast.
Combined ridership in 1995 was 107,751 people per day for all six systems. Over
the next ten years, the six cities spent about $8.1 billion in capital and operating
expenses to serve an additional 98,943 people per day.14 So the capital cost to add one
additional rider to the system between 1996 and 2005 was $82,284 per person.

Again, assuming two thirds of those riders came from existing bus transit means the capital cost to add one additional new transit rider was $242,015 per person.


12 Gregory Roberts, Prop 1. no cure for commute, Seattle Post Intelligencer, 2007. Available online at:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/336095_worth19.html
13 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/jtw8.htm
14 Data adapted from the federal government’s National Transit Database. Available at:
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm.


Washington Policy Center 7






To put this in perspective, King County (Seattle) recently passed Transit Now, which will expand its bus system by 20%.
King County officials estimate Transit Now will add up to 27,000 new daily riders to the county’s transit system. Adjusting for inflation, the cost of Transit Now will be about $140 million per year. This means the total cost for King County to add one new rider to its system will be about $5,185 per person.15
This means attracting a new rider to light rail costs 16 to 47 times as much as attracting a new rider to a traditional bus system.
Weighing these costs and benefits shows that light rail is extremely inefficient, even when compared to other public transportation alternatives. To look at it another way, consider the following chart, which compares the total cost per trip between light rail and traditional bus service on the same six agencies on the West Coast.

Operating Cost Per Trip (2005): Bus & Light Rail.
Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco,
San Jose, Portland

$3.00
$2.62
$2.50

$2.00

$1.50

$1.00

$0.50

$0.00

Light Rail: Operating Cost Per Trip
$2.34












1
Bus: Operating Cost Per Trip


The total annual operating costs (not including capital) for the six light rail
systems on the West Coast was about $439 million in 2005.16 The total trips for the

15 Part V: The Imbalance of Roads and Transit, 2007. Washington Policy Center. Available at:
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Transportation/PN_partvimbalance.html.
16 Data adapted from the federal government’s National Transit Database. Available at:
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm.




Washington Policy Center 8






same systems in 2005 were 167.6 million.17 This means the operating cost for the six light rail systems on the West Coast was $2.62 per trip.
The total operating costs for traditional bus service in the same six agencies was about $1.5 billion and annual trips were about 642 million.18 The operating cost for traditional bus service in 2005 was about $2.34 per trip.

When accounting for passenger demand, light rail on the West Coast costs 12% more to operate than traditional bus service.

This is important because light rail supporters will say that after the initial capital spending, light rail is cheaper to operate than other modes of public transit. On average and among the six western cities with light rail, this is not true.

Other Benefits of Light Rail Lack Evidence

Backers also claim that light rail has certain environmental and economic
development benefits that help justify costs. But there is little evidence to support these
claims.
For example, Portland officials say that the Max light rail system has brought more than $6 billion in new development since the decision for light rail was made in 1978.19 But through zoning changes, tax breaks, outright grants and selling publicly owned property at below market rates, the city was able to attract development along the rail line or near the stations.20 More than light rail, the large public subsidies were likely the main reason for the new development.

The commercial growth claim also fails to account for potential development
that would have naturally occurred in other areas. The Brookings Institution’s Winston and Maheshri say,
“Case studies have yet to show that after their construction transit systems have had a significant effect on employment or land use close to stations and that such benefits greatly exceed the benefits from commercial development that would have occurred elsewhere in the absence of rail construction.”21



17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 http://trimet.org/about/history/maxoverview.htm.
20 Randal O’Toole, Debunking Portland, CATO, 2007. Available online at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa‐596.pdf.
21 C. Winston, V. Maheshri, On the social desirability of urban rail transit systems, Journal of Urban Economics, 2006.




Washington Policy Center 9







Because of these alternative and perhaps more influential variables, it is difficult to casually conclude that a light rail system stimulates economic development; light rail is not as impactful for economic development as public agencies try to claim.

Furthermore, because ridership is so low, the environmental benefits of light rail over the same riders using higher emission buses or passenger cars are easily erased with slight improvements in efficiency and alternative fuels.22 Likewise, light rail
construction and expansion also tempers any environmental advantages due to its long construction period and high energy consumption.

The relationship between light rail and any environmental or economic
development advantages is so slight that their use on influencing policy decisions should be proportionally minor.

Conclusion

Examining the six existing light rail systems in major West Coast cities helps
residents in the Puget Sound, Vancouver and Spokane understand what they can expect from spending on similar systems in Washington.

The following table illustrates the combined mean, high and low results of several key performance data in the six West Coast cities with light rail.

Key performance of six West Coast cities with light rail, 2004 data

Annual
Daily Public Annual Public Operating
Individual Riders Per Mode Share as Subsidy, Subsidy, Cost Per Operating
Riders Track a Percent of Operating Operating & Rider, Light Cost Per
Per Day Mile Workers Costs Capital Costs Rail Rider, Bus
Los Angeles 40,503 348 1.08% 83% 91% $2,757 $1,759
Portland 38,856 418 3.23% 65% 89% $907 $2,258
Sacramento 13,589 217 1.61% 78% 86% $3,078 $3,109
San Diego 32,718 337 2.47% 42% 89% $3,237 $2,398
San Jose 6,748 94 Included in SF 90% 97% $6,781 $4,490
San Francisco 55,710 764 1.77% 80% 91% $1,023 $1,542

Average 31,354 363 2.03% 73% 91% $2,964 $2,593
Source: National Transit Database


22 Todd Myers, Light Rail on I‐90 Will Do Little to Reduce CO2, Washington Policy Center, 2007. Available online at:
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/environment/PolicyBrief/07_light_rail.html.



Washington Policy Center 10







The most relatively efficient systems on the West Coast are San Francisco and
Portland. They move the most people for the least cost and beat the six‐city average in
most cases.

By a large margin, the worst performing system is San Jose. In every category, its performance is worse than the six‐city average.
Further study should be conducted to gain a better understanding on why San
Francisco, Portland and San Jose appear so far from the average of the other systems.

Regardless of how each system ranks with another, the overall poor
performance of the six light rail systems on the West Coast shows that there is a very large gap between public costs and public benefits.
Even the best‐performing systems require a large taxpayer subsidy and have little or no affect on reducing congestion. On average, light rail is more expensive to operate than a normal bus service.

Policymakers and the public should consider whether diverting transportation taxes away from other programs and services is worth the opportunity costs. Based on the data, this analysis concludes that it is not.

There must be a stronger relationship between public spending and traffic congestion relief. Spending transportation tax revenue on projects that have no influence on reducing congestion inevitably makes traffic worse.

The Mythical Benefits of Transit Oriented Development

http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/env/I_125.pdf+why+transit+oriented+development+fails&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

Page 1
The Mythical World of
Transit-Oriented
Development Steele Park in Washington
County, Oregon
by Michael L.Barton, Ph.D.
C
ASCADE
P
OLICY
I
NSTITUTE
September 2003
Page 2
About the Author
Michael L. Barton, Ph.D., is an academic advisor with Cascade Policy Institute.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Mark Ferris, Jamie Voytko and Kurt T. Weber for review-
ing the manuscript, and John A. Charles for research assistance and editorial comments.
Any errors remain the responsibility of the author.
About Cascade Policy Institute
Founded in 1991, Cascade Policy Institute is Oregon’s premier policy research center.
Cascade’s mission is to explore and promote public policy alternatives that foster indi-
vidual liberty, personal responsibility and economic opportunity. To that end the Insti-
tute publishes policy studies,provides public speakers,organizes community forums and
sponsors educational programs. Focusing on state and local issues, Cascade offers prac-
tical, innovative solutions for policy makers, the media and concerned citizens.
Cascade Policy Institute is a tax-exempt educational organization as defined under IRS
code 501(c)(3). Cascade neither solicits nor accepts government funding, and is sup-
ported by individual, foundation, and corporate contributions. Nothing appearing in
this document is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of Cascade or its
donors, or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before any legislative
body. The views expressed herein are the author’s own.
Copyright © 2003 by Cascade Policy Institute. All rights reserved.
ii
Page 3
iii
Contents
About the Author................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................ii
About Cascade Policy Institute ..........................................................................ii
Introduction........................................................................................................ 1
Steele Park: TriMet’s First Single Family TOD.................................................. 1
Cars, Parking and Light Rail .............................................................................. 2
Density and Fire Safety Concerns ..................................................................... 4
Public Subsidies and the Wall ............................................................................ 5
The Planners’ Dream of Density Dissipates...................................................... 6
Steele Park and its Neighbors ............................................................................ 6
Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 7
Notes.................................................................................................................... 8
Page 4
iv
Page 5
1
Introduction
During the past decade, Portland-area plan-
ners haveembraced Transit-Oriented Devel-
opment (TOD) as the region’sdominant land
use/transportation strategy. They assert that
TOD, especially based on light rail, will re-
duce traffic congestion, increase transit use,
and make neighborhoods more livable.
Transit-oriented development is generally
defined as compact,mixed-use development
that concentrates retail, housing and jobs in
neighborhoods well-served by public tran-
sit. TOD has become so important to local
planners that it is now the primary justifica-
tionfor expansion of Portland’s light rail sys-
tem. Rail advocates concede that light rail is
not worth the cost if it is built only as a tran-
sit system.
Dozens of TODs have been constructed in
the Portland region since 1990, with several
winning national acclaim.Most havereceived
public subsidies, on the assumption that the
public benefits of TOD outweigh the costs.
However, little is known about how transit-
oriented projects actually perform in terms
of transit use and any correlated reduction
in auto dependency. The purpose of this pa-
per—the second in a series of CascadePolicy
Institute TOD case studies—is to help fill in
that gap.
1
Steele Park:TriMet’s First
Single Family TOD
Most Transit-Oriented Developments feature
mid-rise or high-rise apartments, lofts or
condominiums, built at 30 units per acre or
more. Portland-area government planners
envisioned Steele Park to be the showcase
project demonstrating that Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) could also work with
detached,single family homes.The first phase
was built in 1996, two years before the
Westside light rail line opened. Developers
Steve Prince and Carl Spitznagle originally
planned a 44-lot subdivision on a 9.1-acre
parcel, located in unincorporated Washing-
ton County just north of the intersection of
Baseline Road and 170
th
SW Avenue. At its
nearest point the sitelies 1,300 feetfrom what
is now Elmonica Station of the light rail line.
Because of its proximity to light rail, county
planners approached Prince and Spitznagle
with an offer to help transform the planned
development into one deemed more transit
friendly.
County planners wanted much higher den-
sity for the project and offered several incen-
tives for the developers to change their
concept. Calthorpe Associates—a nationally
prominent design firm specializing in
TOD—was brought in to develop a revised
site plan, draft a “context”plan to assess how
this higher-density development might fit in
with its neighbors, analyze the salability of
the homes in existing markets, and develop
design guidelines for the proposed housing
types and street sections.
2
The county paid
$15,000 for these services.
The county offered to obtain a federal Con-
gestion Mitigation and Air Quality – Transit
Oriented Developments (CMAQ-TOD)
grant for $300,000 to build a wall buffering
the development from adjacent streets (see
Figures 1 and 5). Help was also offered with
the permits for wetlands mitigation.
The result was a new plan for 74 individual
homes and 18 units in a multi-family develop-
ment on an adjacent lot of 0.6 acre. The 74
homes were built, but the 0.6-acre lot remains
a field of grass and weeds (see Figure 1).
Steele Park homes are on small lots and built
close to the sidewalk.They all havesmall front
Portland-area
government plan-
ners envisioned
Steele Park to be
the showcase
project demon-
strating that
Transit-Oriented
Development
(TOD) could also
work with de-
tached, single
family homes.
Page 6
2
porches,a standard facet of the so-called New
Urbanism philosophy that attempts to pro-
mote “community” by moving the private
realm of the individual home closer to the
public streetscape.
The planning process took between one
and a half and two years versus the usual
six months for a standard suburban sub-
division. In ordinary circumstances this
delay could have been fatal, but because it
came during a period of rapid increases in
property values, the cost of delay was com-
pensated for by the increased profits on the
sale of the units. Prince described the pro-
cess of getting approval as “slow, but the
people at the county were amenable, very
good people.”
3
Cars, Parking and Light Rail
Steele Park was planned to discourage car
ownership and use.The roads are narrow and
parking is scarce. Public parking is only al-
lowed on one side of each street in the devel-
opment.The plan tried toencourage one-car
families, an idea Prince said was “very unre-
alistic.”
For personal investment reasons on the part
of the two developers, half of the two- and
three-bedroom units wereoriginally sold for
ownership and the other half marketed as
rentals.HomeownersI spoke with and Karen
Smith, the agent for the units initially desig-
nated as rentals, agreed that at least half of
the units originally sold are now occupied by
renters. Steele Park is thus mainly a rental
development and this makes meeting other
goals, e.g. limiting car use, more difficult,
because renters tend to bring in additional
roommates to split rent payments and each
tenant usually has a car.
The rental agreements limit cars to two for
the two-bedroom and three for the three-
bedroom units. This limit is much higher
than the original goal of one-car per unit and
Smith admits this limit is not met nor en-
forced. The rental units are often occupied
by more than one family, which further ex-
acerbates the parking problem. In fact
homeowners and Smith agree that a kind of
war is being waged in Steele Park between
the renters and homeowners. The issues in
dispute, such as parking and home mainte-
nance, are probably common to develop-
ments shared by those with differing
incentives to maintain the properties, but
everyone agrees that the problems are aggra-
vated by the limited parking and close prox-
imity of neighbors.
In much of the literature regarding Transit-
OrientedDevelopment thereis an explicit or
implicit expectation that people will change
their behavior to conform to the worldview
of planners. The notion, simply put, is that
by providing access to transit,forcing reduc-
tions in living space and restricting parking,
planners will “get people out of their cars.”
Leaving aside the question of whether it
should be the business of government plan-
ners to work against the free choices of resi-
Figure 1 - Washington County planners haven’t
gotten the density they planned for in Steele Park
because the highest density section, the 18-unit
multi-family development on a 0.6-acre lot (above
right), was never built. That lot has been sold and is
no longer part of Steele Park, which is seen in the
background.
In much of the lit-
erature regarding
Transit-Oriented
Development
there is an explicit
or implicit expec-
tation that people
will change their
behavior to con-
form to the
worldview of
planners.
Page 7
3
dents,it is clear that the effort has proven in-
effective in Steele Park. Because of the
crowded conditions,people respond bypark-
ing in their neighbors’ spots, in no-parking
areas and on the streets of adjacent commu-
nities where developers were allowed to pro-
vide adequate road space.
Portland advocates of TOD go to great
lengths to deny or understate this reality.For
instance,in its flyer Density in Your Backyard,
the planning advocacy group 1000 Friends
of Oregon argues that:
Transit-oriented developments
throughout the region also supply a
mix of transit service, higher density
housing, and neighborhood services.
Such development offsets increases in
automobile trips per household be-
cause people can walk, bicycle or ride
the bus to a park or grocery store.
4
Figure 2 shows a view ofSteele Park takenfrom
this flyer.Itshows fivetidyhomes lined up close
together on small lots, and a total of one car.
This projects the desiredimage of Transit-Ori-
ented Development: people will not need cars
when transit options are provided. A nearly
identical photo appears in TriMet’s profile of
Steele Park in the agency’s 1999 edition of The
Community Building Sourcebook.
5
The reality of TODs is shown in Figures 3
and 4, both were taken on an average after-
noon. The residents of Steele Park are typi-
cal suburban renters and homeowners who
need and enjoy their automobiles. Because
they lack adequate parking they leave their
cars in any open spot, legal or not.
I did a traffic survey on Wednesday morn-
ing, April 17,2002 for two hours starting at
6:25 a.m. The weather was partly overcast
with no rain and a temperature in the mid-
40s.I was positioned toobserveall trips leav-
ing Steele Park from the main exit on 170
th
SW Avenue just north of Baseline Road and
from the main pedestrian exit at the corner
of 170
th
and Baseline. Of the 73 trips out of
the 74-unit subdivision 11 went to the Max
light rail station. There were seven pedestri-
ans of whom four went to Max,one bicyclist
going elsewhere, and two of 14 multi-occu-
pant cars and five of 51 single-occupant cars
went to Max. Table 1 below summarizes the
results.
A total of 92 people left Steele Park in these
73 trips and four of them walked totake light
Figure 2 - The Promise: Steele Park homes as shown
in the 1000 Friends of Oregon brochure, Density in
Your Backyard. (Photo courtesy of 1000 Friends of
Oregon, www.friends.org).
Figure 3 - The Reality: A goal of government planners
was for Steele Park residents to be one-car families.
The above photo, taken on a typical afternoon—with
cars parked in driveways and in the street—shows
that there is often a big difference between what
people want and the ideas government planners
want to impose on them.
The residents of
Steele Park are
typical suburban
renters and
homeowners who
need and enjoy
their automobiles.
Because they lack
adequate parking
they leave their
cars in any open
spot, legal or not.
Page 8
4
rail. These data may understate the number
of people not going to Max because there is a
backway out of the subdivision,which heads
east, away from the Elmonica Station.
Density and Fire Safety
Concerns
Nationallyrecognized fire codes call for 20 feet
of“clear road access”within 50 yards ofa build-
ing. The roads in Steele Park are 24 feet wide
with parking allowed on one side.Thus,when
cars are parked in the street, there is less than
20 feet ofclear roadaccess.JeffGrunewald,Fire
Marshall for Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue,
agreed to the narrow streets with parking lim-
its but sayspolice rarelyenforce the parking lim-
its.
6
Grunewald subsequently worked on a
project for reducing streetwidths leading to is-
suance ofthe NeighborhoodStreetDesign Guide-
lines by the Oregon Department of Land Use
and Conservation.This guide calls for the pro-
vision of “adequate parking” so that on-street
parking is not the typical primary source of
parking.The objective is to havespace between
parked cars so that thereare queuing opportu-
nities.
7
Also,parking near intersections onnar-
row streets should not be permitted because it
can interfere with the turning movements of
large vehicles.
8
Fire Marshall Grunewald readily agreed that
Steele Park does not meet even these relaxed
requirements (see Figure 4).
Surprisingly,the State Fire Marshall does not
have the last word when it comes to review-
ing proposed subdivision plans for fire safety.
The question of authority was clarified in
1997 whenORS 92.044 was amended tostate
that standards for the width of streets estab-
lished by local governments shall “supersede
and prevail over any specifications and stan-
dards for roads and streets set forth in a uni-
form fire code adopted by the State Fire
Marshal, a municipal fire department or a
county firefighting agency.”
9
This change came about as a result of liabil-
ity concerns by the State Fire Marshall and
the OregonFire Chiefs Association (OFCA).
The OCFA wrote in a June 26, 1997 letter to
Metro, the Portland-area regional govern-
ment,“Planners are promoting and approv-
ing development that we may not be able to
service.”
10
The letter noted that legal opin-
ions at the time differed on where liability
would fall in the event emergency vehicles
were denied access in a development where
nationally recognized standards for fire de-
partment access had been ignored, and pro-
posed ceding authority to local planning
departments. According to Grunewald the
OFCA endorsed this proposal because local
Figure 4 - Another typical late-afternoon street scene
in Steele Park. Contrary to government planners’
desires, residents continue to drive cars. Here,
because of planned narrow streets, parking is
restricted to one side of the road—so cars often
impinge on the corners where there is supposed to
be a no-parking zone for fire access.
Max Other
4 3
0 1
2 12
5 46
11 62
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Multi-occupant Car
Single-occupant Car
Total
Table 1 - Trips out of Steele Park, mode and
destination
Surprisingly, the
State Fire Marshall
does not havethe
last wordwhen it
comes to reviewing
proposed subdivi-
sion plans for fire
safety.
Page 9
5
planners were overriding their recommen-
dations anyway.
Public Subsidies and the Wall
TriMet’s1999 Community Building Sourcebook
described Steele Park’sfinancing this way:“The
project is privately financed with the exception
of a $300,000 CMAQ-TOD grant....”
11
Itturns
out, however, public subsidies for the project
totaled some $463,000,plus the $15,000 cost of
the Calthorpe contract,and none ofthe money
came directly from a federal Congestion Man-
agement and Air Quality grant.
The original purpose of the $300,000 grant
was to fund the construction of a wall around
the project as an inducement to the develop-
ers to go with the high-density design pro-
ducing 74 homes rather than their original
plan for 44 larger homes on larger lots. Un-
fortunately the plan called for the wall to be
built on the developer’s land rather than on
public land, and that made it ineligible for
the CMAQ-TOD grant, which had already
been approved. Forging ahead, Washington
County arranged to use unrestricted county
funds for the wall and entered into two In-
tergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) to ex-
ecute the deal.
One IGA with the Portland Development
Commission promised Washington County
“a$300,000 federal Congestion Management
and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant for bike and
pedestrian facilities on 185
th
from Blantonto
Kinnaman … in exchange for the County’s
pedestrian-oriented improvements at 170
th
and Baseline.”
12
This exchange did not ulti-
mately work out and the CMAQ grant money
eventually was used for bike and pedestrian
improvements to Cedar Hills Boulevard.
13
The County paid the $12,000 administration
fee for this grant, an additional cost of the
money exchange.
A separate IGA with TriMet provided up to
$200,000 from the County’s Traffic Impact
Fee fund for TriMet to use in Tualatin in ex-
change for a like amount of TriMet general
funds, which could be legally used to build a
wall on private property.
This sort of money laundering—swapping
restricted-use funds between government
agencies—seems to be commonplace in
today’s planning bureaucracy.
14
In several
phone conversations, TriMet and Portland
Development Commission staff members
promised to provide their reasons for enter-
ing into these IGAs but failed to do so.
Aside from the arcane financing scheme, it’s
not clear what the purpose of the wall was
and what it had to do with Transit-Oriented
Development.Because government planners
obtained the CMAQ grant to help pay for it,
they presumably thought it would help re-
duce congestion or air pollution (otherwise
it would not have qualified for CMAQ fund-
ing).But Mark Ferris,a planner who worked
with the developers to design Steele Park,
wrote, “the wall was strictly decorative.”
15
MarkBrown,a principal planner with Wash-
ington County, told an Oregonian reporter,
“it’s [sic] primary purpose was to be an ar-
chitectural feature for the neighborhood.”
16
However,many of the earlyresidents of Steele
Park apparently thought the wall had been
built as a sound barrier, and complained it
wasn’t working. In 1997 The Oregonian re-
ported that occupants of 32 of the
subdivision’s then-completed 49 homes sub-
mitted a petition to the County, asking it “to
beef up the wall for several reasons, includ-
ing child safety, crime prevention, sound re-
duction, increased personal privacy and its
effect on future resale prices.”
17
According to
the article, Steve Prince acknowledged that
he might have told some residents a sound
This sort of
money launder-
ing—swapping
restricted-use
funds between
government agen-
cies—seems to be
commonplace in
today’s planning
bureaucracy.
Page 10
6
barrier would be built. Prince told me the
article was “not accurate” but he did not
specify in what regard. The wall is shown in
Figures 1 and 5.
Washington County declined to make any
improvements to the wall and today it re-
mains ornamental. A homeowner I spoke
with, who lives just across the wall from
Baseline Road, describes it as “useless” for
noise reduction.
The Planners’ Dream of Density
Dissipates
Washington County planners haven’t gotten
the density they had planned for in Steele
Park because the highest density section of
the development, the 18-unit multi-family
development on a 0.6-acre lot, was never
built. In fact it isn’t even part of the Steele
Park development anymore.
Steve Prince sold the lot to Emerald Develop-
ment Company of Beaverton, which attached
the lot to its yet-unbuilt Meridian Village project
just west of Steele Park (see Figure 6).
Emerald Development got the zoning
changed for the 0.6-acre lot and plans a
mixed-use facility with three commercial
outlets and 12 condominiums.
18
Emerald
Development Co.managerHabib Matin said
he was pleased to have negotiated 50 park-
ing spaces after “a back and forth battle with
the City.” This victory may be short-lived,
however, because the approval for Emerald’s
plan has expired and it has to start the regu-
latory process anew.
Steele Park and its Neighbors
A walk through Steele Park reveals a crowded
but pleasant neighborhood with lots of cars
and lots of kids.Because the houses are small
most residents seem to use their garages for
storage and I saw no car actually parked in a
garage.Parking is restrictedto one side of the
road and parked cars often impinge on the
corners where there is a no-parking zone for
fire access. Residents share a concern over
safety and agree that the narrowing of street
widths at the corners fails to control speeds;
coupled with the presence of parked cars on
the corners, owners and renters alike worry
over the safety of their children with drivers
taking the sharp corners at high speed.
The developments adjacent toSteele Park fea-
turelarger homes on larger lots and the own-
ers and occupants seem unhappy with their
more crowded neighbors. One man had
moved two blocks out of Steele Park because
Figure 5 - Part of the Steele Park decorative wall that
many residents thought would be a sound barrier.
Figure 6 - Site of unbuilt Meridian Village.
The developments
adjacent to Steele
Park feature larger
homes on larger
lots and the owners
and occupants
seem unhappy
with their more
crowded neigh-
bors.
Page 11
7
of its “undesirable character.”Another home-
owner, whose house is right next to Steele
Park,complains of residents parking in front
of his home and refers to the development as
a “ghetto.” Because one of the goals of the
planning process is the creation of livable
communities this animosity raises the issue
of how high-density, limited-parking devel-
opments can coexist with more traditional
neighborhoods.
Conclusion
Steele Park is a pleasant little neighborhood.
New residents are planting shrubs and making
home improvements,and neighbors seemcon-
cerned about eachother.The problems the resi-
dents havewith parking would just be their own
problems (except for the fire safety concerns)
and their unhappiness with the decorativewall
would be their own unhappiness except for the
fact that several local governments stepped in
and created this neighborhood with these prob-
lems because of a philosophy of Transit-Ori-
ented Development.
In comparing the stated objectives of TOD
with the reality of Steele Park, it’s apparent
that the objectives are not being met. Most
residents don’t use light rail regularly, and
those who do tend to drive the quarter mile
to TriMet’s free Park-n-Ride lot. Local roads
receive more traffic from the Steele Park de-
velopment than they would have under the
original, medium-density design, and con-
sequently it’s impossible to argue that TOD
has resulted in improved air quality. The at-
tempt to use $300,000 in federal Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality funds for the
decorative wall led to high transaction costs
due to the complexity of the Intergovern-
mental Agreements required to swap funds,
and the wall itself ultimately proved useless
for noise reduction or any other environmen-
tal benefit.
TOD advocates claim that light rail is a cata-
lyst for real estate development, but the ex-
perience at Steele Park suggests that
developers havetobe inducedand/or coerced
to build at higher densities through the use
of public subsidies and land-use regulation.
Even then, land near light rail frequently lies
vacant because it is not economically feasible
to build the kinds of projects desired by gov-
ernment planners.
Bill Avery, principle planner with the Wash-
ington County Department of Land Use &
Transportation, called Steele Park a “long-
range fiasco,” citing the look of the project,
the high ratio of renters to owners, the dis-
like of the adjacent neighborhoods and “op-
position from the Fire Marshall.”
19
Perhaps the most notable assessment ofSteele
Park has come, in a subdued fashion, from
TriMet. In 1999 TriMet published the Com-
munity Building Sourcebookas a one-stop in-
formation source about transit, land-use
planning and TOD. Chapter Three included
profiles of more than 20 Transit-Oriented
Developments,one of which was Steele Park.
TriMet described Steele Park as the first Port-
land-area TOD to feature detached, single-
family homes.
In December 2002 TriMet published a new
edition of the Community Building
Sourcebook. Although Transit-Oriented De-
velopment is still heavily promoted,the Steele
Park profile has been deleted.
20
TOD advocates
claim that light
rail is a catalyst
for real estate
development, but
the experience at
Steele Park sug-
gests that
developers have to
be induced and/or
coerced to build at
higher densities
through the use of
public subsidies
and land-use
regulation.
Page 12
8
Notes
1
The first Cascade TOD case study was John
A.Charles,MPA,and Michael Barton,Ph.D.,
The Mythical World of Transit Oriented De-
velopment: Light Rail and the Orenco Neigh-
borhood, Hillsboro, Oregon (Portland, OR:
Cascade Policy Institute, April 2003),
www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/env/I_124.pdf.
2
Professional Services Agreement between
Calthorpe Associates and Washington
County, March 28, 1994, Attachment “A”.
3
Steven Prince, personal communication
with author, May 2002.
4
1000 Friends of Oregon, “Density in Your
Backyard,” www.friends.org.
5
Community Building Sourcebook (Portland,
OR: TriMet, 1999), pp. 3-7.
6
Brent Hunsberger,“NarrowStreets Increase
Fire Officials’Worries,”The Oregonian, Sept.
7, 1998, p. B2.
7
“Queuing”refers to using the gaps between
parked cars to accommodate two-way traf-
fic along a narrow street.
8
Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines (Sa-
lem,OR: Oregon Dept.of Land Use and Con-
servation, Nov. 2000), p. 11.
9
Ibid., p. 5.
10
Letter from Oregon Fire Chiefs Associa-
tion to Metro (regional government, OR),
June 26, 1997.
11
Community Building Sourcebook, p.3-7.
12
Washington County [Oregon] Board of
Commissioners Agenda, Aug. 6, 1996.
13
Joe Younkins,Washington County Capital
Project Management, personal communica-
tion to author.
14
See, e.g., Charles and Barton, pp. 21-22.
15
MarkFerris,personal communication with
John A. Charles, Cascade Policy Institute
(Portland, OR), July 9, 2003.
16
Alex Pulaski, “Residents Dissatisfied with
County’s Buffer,” The Oregonian, March 3,
1997, p. B4.
17
Ibid.
18
Habib Matin, Manager of Emerald Devel-
opment Co., personal communication with
author, October 2002.
19
BillAvery,interviewwithMichaelL.Barton,
Ph.D., April 18, 2002.
20
Community Building Sourcebook(Portland,
OR: TriMet, Dec. 2002).
Page 13
9
Page 14
10
Page 15
11
Page 16
C
ASCADE
I
NSTITUTE
P
OLICY
813 SW Alder, Suite 450
Portland, Oregon 97205
(503) 242-0900
info@cascadepolicy.org
www.cascadepolicy.org
fax (503) 242-3822

US Light Rail Systems by Ridership and Track Miles

Rank System Largest city served Daily ridership Date Miles of track
1 MBTA T Green line and Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line* Boston 255,100 Third quarter of 2007 25.4[2]
2 Muni Metro, cable car, and F Market* San Francisco 146,200 Third quarter of 2007 66.1[3] + 5.4[3]
3 Los Angeles County Metro Rail Blue, Green, and Gold lines* Los Angeles 134,400 Third quarter of 2007 55.7[4]
4 San Diego Trolley San Diego 124,300 Third quarter of 2007 53.5[5]
5 MAX Light Rail and Portland Streetcar Portland 107,900 Third quarter of 2007 44[6] + 6.0[7]
6 SEPTA Subway-Surface Lines, Suburban Trolley Lines, and Girard Avenue Trolley* Philadelphia 89,600 Third quarter of 2007 60[8]
7 MetroLink St. Louis 82,000 Third quarter of 2007 46[9]
8 DART Light Rail, MATA streetcar Dallas 62,200 Third quarter of 2007 45[10] + 3.6[11]
9 RTD Light Rail Denver 59,700 Third quarter of 2007 35[12]
10 Sacramento Regional Transit District Light Rail Sacramento 49,500 Second quarter of 2007 36.9[13]
11 UTA TRAX Salt Lake City 042,500 First quarter of 2007[14] 19[15]
12 METRORail Houston 41,700 Third quarter of 2007 7.5[16]
13 Santa Clara VTA Light Rail San Jose 36,000 Third quarter of 2007 28.6[17]
14 Hiawatha Line Minneapolis 29,500 Third quarter of 2007 12[18]
15 Baltimore Light Rail* Baltimore 27,300 Third quarter of 2007 30.0[19]
16 Hudson-Bergen Light Rail* Jersey City 25,850[20] Second quarter of 2006 27.2[20]
17 The T Pittsburgh 24,200 Third quarter of 2007 25[21]
18 Buffalo Metro Rail Buffalo 19,100 Third quarter of 2007 6.4[22]
19 Newark Light Rail* Newark 18,000[20] Second quarter of 2006 9.9[20]
20 The Rapid Blue and Green Lines* Cleveland 11,400 Third quarter of 2007[14] 15[23]
21 River Line Trenton 7,350[20] Second quarter of 2006 69.7[20]
22 Streetcars in New Orleans New Orleans 4,500 Third quarter of 2007 21.5[24][25]
23 Memphis RTA Main Street Trolley Memphis 003,300 Third quarter of 2007 7[26]
24 Tacoma Link Tacoma 2,873[27] First quarter of 2007 1.6[28]
25 TECO Line Streetcar System Tampa 800 Third quarter of 2007 2.3[7]
26 Charlotte Trolley Charlotte 700[29] Fourth quarter of 2004 2.1[30]
27 River Rail Streetcar Little Rock 340[31] 2005 2.5[7]
28 Kenosha Transit Kenosha 300 Second quarter of 2007 2.0[7]
29 Island Transit trolley Galveston 200 Second quarter of 2007 5.2[32]

[edit] Ridership per Mile

The following is a list of light rail systems in the United States, ranked by ridership per mile of track. Figures are computed using the 'ridership' and 'miles of track' numbers above.
Rank Largest city served Ridership per mile
1 Boston 10,043
2 Houston 5,560
3 Buffalo 2,984
4 Minneapolis 2,458
5 Los Angeles 2,412
6 San Diego 2,323
7 Salt Lake City 2,237
8 Portland 2,158
9 San Francisco 2,045
10 Newark 1,818
11 Tacoma 1,799
12 St. Louis 1,782
13 Denver 1,705
14 Philadelphia 1,493
15 Sacramento 1,341
16 Dallas 1,280
17 San Jose 1,258
18 Pittsburgh 968
19 Jersey City 950
20 Baltimore 910
21 Cleveland 760
22 Memphis 529
23 Tampa 391
24 Charlotte 333
25 New Orleans 209
26 Kenosha 150
27 Little Rock 136
28 Trenton 105
29 Galveston 38

Notes

1. ^ American Public Transportation Association, Light Rail Transit Ridership Report, Third Quarter 2007.
2. ^ Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization, Transportation System Performance, The MBTA System: Quick Facts, 2003.
3. ^ a b San Francisco Municipal Railway, Short Range Transit Plan, Chapter 8: Infrastructure Program, December 6, 2005.
4. ^ Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, Facts at a Glance, June 19, 2007.
5. ^ Metropolitan Transit System, Fact Sheet, May 2007.
6. ^ Tri-Met, Facts about Tri-Met, October 2006.
7. ^ a b c d American Public Transportation Association, APTA Streetcar and Heritage Trolley Site, Overview.
8. ^ SEPTA, SEPTA Operating Facts, Fiscal Year 2006.
9. ^ St. Louis Metro, Inside Metrolink, 2007.
10. ^ Dallas Area Rapid Transit, DART Rail Facts
11. ^ American Public Transportation Association, APTA Streetcar and Heritage Trolley Site, Dallas Overview.
12. ^ Regional Transit District, RTD Facts, February, 2006; Regional Transit District, About Southeast Light Rail, 2007.
13. ^ Sacramento Regional Transit District, RT at a Glance.
14. ^ a b American Public Transportation Association, Light Rail Transit Ridership Report, First Quarter 2007.
15. ^ Schneider, Keith. "A Rail Line Drives Development in Utah", New York Times, April 22, 2007.
16. ^ News: News Releases
17. ^ Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Web Site, Frequently Asked Questions, Where does VTA provide service?
18. ^ Metro Transit, Facts about trains and construction, 2007.
19. ^ Roads to the Future: Baltimore Central Light Rail Line
20. ^ a b c d e f New Jersey Transit, Facts at a Glance, Fiscal Year 2006. The APTA combines statistics for all New Jersey Transit light rail operations, which includes the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, the Newark Light Rail, and the River Line.
21. ^ Port Authority of Allegheny County, T Quick Facts.
22. ^ NFTA-Metro, Metro Rail Facts, 2004.
23. ^ Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, RTA Facts.
24. ^ [1] Saint Charles Line
25. ^ [2]Canal and Riverfront line
26. ^ [3]Memphis Streetcar
27. ^ Sound Transit, Quarterly Performance Report, First Quarter 2007.
28. ^ Sound Transit, Light Rail Fares
29. ^ Ridership Is Low For Charlotte's Morning Trolley Service - Charlotte News Story - WSOC Charlotte
30. ^ American Public Transportation Association, APTA Streetcar and Heritage Trolley Site, Charlotte, July 2005.
31. ^ MassTransitMag.com » Article » Builders Like Rail Line, but Riders are Sparse
32. ^ American Public Transportation Association, APTA Streetcar and Heritage Trolley Site - Galveston Overview,

History of Light Rail in North America

History of Streetcar and Light rail


From the mid-19th century onwards, horse-drawn trams (or horsecars) were used in cities around the world. In the late 1880s electrically-powered street railways became technically feasible following the invention of a trolley pole system of collecting current by American inventor Frank J. Sprague who installed the first successful system at Richmond, Virginia. They became popular because roads were then poorly-surfaced, and before the invention of the internal combustion engine and the advent of motor-buses, they were the only practical means of public transport around cities.[2]

The streetcar systems constructed in the 19th and early 20th centuries typically only ran in single-car setups. Some rail lines experimented with multiple unit configurations, where streetcars were joined together to make short trains, but this did not become common until later. When lines were built over longer distances (typically with a single track) before good roads were common, they were generally called interurban streetcars in North America or radial railways in Ontario.

In North America, many of these original Streetcar systems were decommissioned in the 1950s and onward as the popularity of the automobile increased. Britain abandoned its last light rail system except Blackpool by 1962.[3] Although some traditional trolley or tram systems still exist to this day, the term "light rail" has come to mean a different type of rail system. Modern light rail technology has primarily German origins, since an attempt by Boeing Vertol to introduce a new American light rail vehicle was a technical failure. After World War II, the Germans retained their streetcar networks and evolved them into model light rail systems (stadtbahnen). Except for Hamburg, all large and most medium-sized German cities maintain light rail networks.[4]

The renaissance of light rail in North American began in 1978 when the Canadian city of Edmonton, Alberta adopted the German Siemens-Duewag U2 system, followed three years later by Calgary, Alberta and San Diego, California. Britain began replacing its run-down local railways with light rail in the 1980s, starting with Tyneside and followed by the Docklands Light Railway in London. The trend to light rail in the United Kingdom was firmly established with the success of the Manchester Metrolink system in 1992.

Historically, the rail gauge has had considerable variations, with narrow gauge common in many early systems. However, most light rail systems are now standard gauge.[4] An important advantage of standard gauge is that standard railway maintenance equipment can be used on it, rather than custom-built machinery. Using standard gauge also allows light rail vehicles to be delivered and relocated conveniently using freight railways and locomotives. Another factor favoring standard gauge is that low-floor vehicles are becoming popular, and there is generally insufficient space for wheelchairs to move between the wheels in a narrow gauge layout.

Origins of light rail in North America


The renaissance of light rail in North American began in 1978 when Edmonton, Alberta adopted the German Siemens-Duewag U2 system, followed three years later by Calgary, Alberta and San Diego, California. These modern light-rail systems are more like subway or metro systems that operate at street level. They include modern, multi-car trains that can only be accessed at stations that are spaced anywhere from a couple blocks to a mile or more apart. Some of these systems operate within roadways alongside automobile traffic, and others operate on their own separate right-of-way.

[edit] Politics of light rail in North America


Due to lower density of many American cities, LRT speed relative to the automobile, generally lower ridership levels, and questions of cost-effectiveness, the construction of light rail systems has spurred political controversy as a use of public funds. Arguments made against light rail systems often bill it as less practical than equivalent bus systems and less effective than increases in highway capacity. Arguments in favor of light rail point to overall improvements in safety and quality of life in cities supporting rail-based mass transit and long-term sustainability benefits.

[ Usage of light rail in North America
North American Light Rail Ridership City Number of Boardings
Average Weekday (thousands)1 Annual Total (millions)²
Toronto 322.4 88.6
Calgary 220.0 52.6
Boston 200.4 70.6
San Francisco 148.2 43.4
Los Angeles 137.7 39.7
Portland 104.3 32.1
San Diego 100.9 28.8
Philadelphia 68.6 18.8
Dallas 62.4 17.6
St. Louis 58.7 16.1
Salt Lake City 58.3
Edmonton 42.7 15.6
Houston 37.8 10.6
Denver 30.8
San Jose 30.5
Minneapolis 28.8 7.9
Pittsburgh 26.0 7.3
Buffalo 18.0 5.4

1Second Quarter 2006
22005

Sources: American Public Transportation Authority,


Diesel light rail

A few recently-opened systems in North America use diesel-powered trains, including the River Line in New Jersey (opened in 2004), the O-Train in Ottawa (opened in 2001), and the upcoming SPRINTER in northern San Diego County, California (projected to be opened by late 2007). Diesel operations are chosen in corridors where lower ridership is expected (and thus do not justify the expense of the electric power infrastructure) or which have an "interurban" nature with stations spaced relatively far apart (electric power provides greater acceleration, making it essential for operations with closely-spaced stations). Operations with diesel-powered trains can be an interim measure until ridership growth and the availability of funding allow the system to be upgraded to electric power operations.

Light rail in the United States

United States use of light rail is low by European standards. According to the American Public Transportation Authority, of the 20-odd light rail systems in the United States only five (Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Portland, OR), achieve more than 25 million passenger boardings per year, and only Boston exceeds the 50+ million boardings per year of the London Docklands Light Rail system.

Compared with that of Canada, the United States federal government offers considerably more funding for transportation projects of all types, resulting in smaller portions of light rail construction cost to be borne at the local and state levels.[citation needed] This funding is provided by the Federal Transit Administration though as of 2004 the rules to determine which projects will be funded are biased against the simpler streetcar systems (partly because the vehicles tend to be somewhat slower). Some cities in the U.S. (e.g. San Pedro, California) have set about building the less expensive streetcar lines themselves or with only minimal federal support.

Boston

The oldest and busiest light rail in the United States is the MBTA Green Line in Boston. With 235,300 daily ridership on its 25.4 miles (40.9 km) of track, the Green Line is a primary transportation route in Brighton and Allston for students and for the work force where the line runs further downtown.

The subsurface portion of the line had originally built to alleviate congestion for street level trolley cars. In 1932, the expansion of the Boston subway resulted in the creation of four westbound surface portals as the line split off four ways above ground to what would later be called the B, C, D, and E lines. Though, unlike most trolleys, the lines have their own separate path in the medians of their respective roads, still three of the four lines do not have grade-separated right-of-ways and consequently are forced to wait in traffic lights. The D line is an exception to this because it runs on a disused grade-separated railroad right-of-way.

A recent project by the MBTA was the 2004 removal of the Causeway Street Elevated portion of the line, which was replaced with underground tunnel, as a part of Big Dig environmental remediation, leaving the Lechmere Viaduct as the only remaining elevated part of the line. Other work includes many station overhauls that will improve handicapped accessibility.

Los Angeles

The Los Angeles County Metro Rail light rail system comprises three lines: the Green, Gold, and Blue lines. Collectively they have 134,300 daily weekday boardings. The Blue line, in particular is the second-busiest line in the United States with 72,295 boardings. The Blue and Gold Lines run mostly at grade, with some street-running, elevated, and underground stretches in more densely populated areas. The Green Line is entirely grade separated, running in the median of the I-105 Freeway and then turning southward along an elevated route. The Blue Line opened first, in 1990. The Green Line began service in 1995, and the Gold Line entered service in 2003.
This short section requires expansion.

San Francisco

The San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) light rail lines are vestigial from its streetcar days, and it is one of few American cities to continuously operate light rail from the streetcar era. As a result, the present-day system has above ground portions running in mixed traffic, stopping at traffic lights as streetcars, while buried sections have their own right-of-way like a subway. Though in other United States cities in 1950s, the trend was to replace streetcars with bus service, five heavily used lines traveled through tunnels or otherwise had private right-of-ways, making bus replacement not viable. About this time, plans for a subway, the Muni Metro, were drawn up, opening in 1980. Similar to Boston's Green Line, five separate lines above ground converge to one subway route, though in the former, the underground line was constructed first and surface routes later.

In response to the dot com boom, the system became strained and Muni ordered newer, larger vehicles, which turned out to have their own noise and braking problems. In 1998, a four station extension of the trunk line was built, and in 2007 light rail service began on a new line going south from downtown, achieving limited success. Plans are underway for a three station underground light rail line, expected to serve 78,000 daily riders by 2030. Due to underground routing, the cost for the 1.7-mile (2.7 km) line is estimated at $1.5 billion.

Portland, Oregon

The Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) system serves the Portland metropolitan area. It has 44.3 miles (71.3 km) between three lines: the Blue, Red and Yellow and serves 104,200 daily, counting the free boarding "Fareless Square". Like most modern light rail systems MAX runs in mixed traffic in the city, but has its own right-of-way further out. The 2-car trains are length limited by the relatively small (200 ft) blocks in downtown Portland.

The MAX system was born out of funds left over from the canceled Mount Hood Freeway, with the Blue line opening in 1986, the Red Line connection to Portland International Airport opening in 2001, while the latest line to be opened was the Yellow Line in 2004, which connects downtown to Portland Expo Center via Interstate Avenue. The Green Line is a 6.5-mile (10.5 km) track under construction intended to connect Gateway Transit Center and a new Clackamas Town Center Transit Center, while a planned Orange Line would be built from the Green Line's southern terminus at Portland State University.

San Diego

San Diego Trolley currently comprises three lines, the Blue, Orange and Green, collectively running on 51.1 miles (82.2 km) of track and achieving a ridership of 107,000. During the time that the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) was drawing up options for a transit system, Hurricane Kathleen made landfall, damaging many of the tracks operated by the freight carrier, San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway, and cutting them off from the greater Southern Pacific Railroad, and South Pacific petitioned for abandonment. The auspicious timing of the incident led the MTDB to buy and repair the tracks, opening a 13.5-mile (21.7 km) light rail segment on 1981, while also reestablishing freight service on the same line (the Blue Line runs on shared-use track). The system has been expanded incrementally ever since. There are currently plans for an 11-mile (18 km) extension to the University City community, connecting the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) campus and University Towne Centre shopping center to the rest of the system.


St. Louis

St. Louis light rail consists of two lines, both running through the city center with 73.3 kilometers (46 miles) of track. There are terminals across the Mississippi River in western Illinois, at Lambert Field Airport, and in the southwestern part of the county. The first part of the system opened in 1993. The second line of the system, the "Cross County Extension," entered service in 2005. All track is in independent right of way, mostly at surface level. In the downtown area, the system uses abandoned railway tunnels built in the 19th century. There are three underground stations, which have an ancient appearance with rough-hewn rock walls. The "Cross County Extension" also has a few portions in tunnels, which are large and of modern concrete construction. Since it opened expansion has continued, if slowly. Ridership, at more than 16 million yearly, has always exceeded expectations.

Dallas

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) is the operator of the 45-mile (72 km) light rail system that runs in Dallas and three of its suburbs, along with a 34-mile (55 km) commuter rail line that connects to Fort Worth and runs through Irving, a DART member city. The LRT lines began with the opening of the 20-mile (32 km) starter system in 1996. In the first few years after the turn of the century, DART opened several small expansions, culminating in the opening of Victory Station, serving the American Airlines Center in 2004.

DART currently runs two LRT lines. The Red Line begins in southwest Dallas at Westmoreland Station and runs northeast to downtown, then runs north through the suburbs of Richardson and Plano to its terminus at Parker Road Station. The Blue line begins in South Dallas at Ledbetter Station and runs north, joining the Red Line at 8th and Corinth Station on its trek to downtown. It continues north to Mockingbird Station before it breaks away from the Red Line and turns northeast toward Garland, ending its run at Downtown Garland Station.

The system is currently under expansion as the Green Line is under construction and will run from Pleasant Grove in southeast Dallas to the suburbs Farmers Branch and Carrollton. It is set to open in two phases, first in September 2009, then in December of 2010. Other expansions include the Orange Line, to run from downtown, the Las Colinas in Irving and on to DFW Airport. Also, the Blue Line is set to expand east to Rowlett and south to Interstate 20. When the latest expansion round is completed, DART's system will have 93 miles (150 km) of LRT.

Salt Lake City

The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) runs the 19 mile (31km) light rail system known as TRAX in the Salt Lake Valley. The system, which opened in 1999, serves approximately 58,300 people every day and contains 69 vehicles.[5] The system has 2 lines, both of which end Downtown at EnergySolutions Arena. One line ends at the University of Utah, while the other ends in the suburb of Sandy. Four extensions have recently been approved and funded, with completion expected by 2014.

Houston

The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas (METRO), started its opened its METRORail service on January 1, 2004 to very large crowds. The system currently consists of a single track of 7.5 miles (12.1 km). The system serves 45,000 passengers daily. Like many other light rail systems in America, METRORail runs in city streets and does not have its own right of way. Two-car trains are the maximum on the line due to Downtown Houston's city block size.

San Jose


San Jose's light rail network, owned and maintained by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, consists of 42.2 miles (67.9 km) of track across three different lines.

The Alum Rock - Santa Teresa line serves the eastern, northern, downtown, and southern areas of San Jose. The Mountain View - Winchester line operates between Mountain View and the Winchester neighborhood of San Jose. Both of these lines share the same tracks and stations on First Street between Tasman Drive in northern San Jose and the San Jose Convention Center in downtown. A third line, the Ohlone-Chynoweth - Almaden line, is a three-stop spur that connects the Almaden Valley area to the Alum Rock - Santa Teresa Line.

Minneapolis

The Twin Cities have one LRT Line, the Hiawatha Line. This line runs from downtown Minneapolis, next to the Metrodome, near the University of Minnesota campus, to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, then to the Mall of America. This line opened in 2004. Two other lines are in planning: the Central Corridor, which runs from downtown Minneapolis to downtown St. Paul; and the Southwest Corridor, which runs from Eden Prairie to downtown Minneapolis.

[edit] New Jersey

In New Jersey, New Jersey Transit provides light rail service along three lines in different parts of the state.

Jersey City



In Jersey City, New Jersey, the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail (HBLR) services the eastern and southern parts of the city and other areas of the Gold Coast to North Bergen, New Jersey, extending south to Bayonne on one branch.

Newark


The Newark Light Rail, previously the Newark City Subway, is a grade-separated line running through the center of Newark that now runs northward to Belleville, with a second branch to Newark-Broad St. station. This line originally was the #7 streetcar line before its conversion to light rail in the early 2000s.

Trenton to Camden via Burlington City

The River Line is a diesel light rail line in southern New Jersey, running along, except at its ends, what was previously the Bordentown Secondary, from Trenton to Camden, serving communities along the Delaware River between thee cities. This line is one of only two diesel light rail lines in North America, and the only one in the United States.

Baltimore

The Baltimore Light Rail is a single line reaching from BWI Airport south of Baltimore, through the city and north to a strip mall and office park. With 30 miles (48 km) of track, the line achieves a daily ridership of 24,500.

Major efforts toward the creation of the light rail were championed by then mayor William Donald Schaefer, who wanted a transit link to the new baseball park, Camden Yards, about to be built downtown. In order to have the line completed the month that the Baltimore Orioles started playing in Camden Yards, the system was built entirely without federal money, a rarity in late 20th century U.S. transit projects. Federal funds would later be used to double track the whole system, decreasing headways which had been restricted to 17 minutes.

The light rail line was built entirely at grade, even through downtown's narrow streets. Though the majority of the track's length is grade-separated from acquiring disused railroad rights-of-way, trains run in the streets in some portions downtown and must obey traffic lights there as well. The Maryland Transit Administration has drawn up plans for an additional four lines which may be light rail, bus rapid transit, or heavy rail to create a comprehensive city system. As of 2007, only the future of one line is certain. The Red Line, which is in its intermediate planning stages, would be an East-West link via either bus rapid transit or light rail. Whichever mode is selected, officials have insisted that the line be underground through the city center because of Baltimore's narrow streets and dense traffic.

Charlotte

Charlotte's LYNX system consists of a single 9.6-mile (15.4 km) line called the Blue Line. After receiving a positive Record of Decision from the Federal Transit Administration on May 19, 2003, continued preparation and land acquisition would finally result in its groundbreaking in spring 2005. The line is in full operation, at a projected final cost of $462.7 million. This price tag does not include indirect or ancillary costs such as rerouting water and sewer lines to accommodate the line, estimated at an additional $72 million as of April 2006.

The Blue Line's construction was part of a greater comprehensive transit network for the Charlotte region. 70.6 more miles of track are planned, though many of these may be Bus Rapid Transit or streetcar lin

Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh Light Rail

Pittsburgh's light rail network, commonly known as The T, is a 25-mile (40 km) light rail system in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; it functions as a subway in downtown Pittsburgh and largely as an at-grade light rail service in the suburbs. The system is owned and operated by the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT). It is the successor system to the far more extensive streetcar network formerly operated by Pittsburgh Railways.

The current lines, which run south from the downtown into the South Hills area, were formerly operated by PCC streetcars. Beginning in the 1980s PAT reconstructed the lines along the existing right-of-way and ordered new trams from Siemens. PCCs continued to operate in tandem with the new light rail vehicles until 1999 when the last five were retired from service. PAT also constructed a new subway line in the downtown, ending decades of street-running in the Golden Triangle. Current expansion plans include an extension from the downtown subway under the Allegheny River to connect with PNC Park and Heinz Field; the North Shore Connector is slated to open by 2011.

Buffalo

Buffalo's light rail line of only 6.6 miles (10.6 km) was to be a starter line in a much larger system. However with the declining population of the area, no expansions were sought. The small line still averages over 20,000 daily riders

[edit] Seattle

Seattle's Sound Transit light rail system consists of a 1.6-mile (2.6 km) line known as Tacoma Link. Extensions to the University of Washington are planned to begin operation in 2009. The initial phase, Link light rail in Tacoma, is already operational. Voters in the Sound Transit service area rejected a controversial plan to extend light rail and roads in a 2007 vote, but may approve a light rail-only extension on the ballot in 2008.


Light rail in Canada
A Calgary Transit Siemens-Duewag U2 LRV #2043, part of Calgary, Alberta's C-Train.


Canadian cities have much higher transit use than comparable U.S. cities. Toronto, Ontario (metropolitan population 5 million) has twice the transit ridership of comparable U.S. cities, while Calgary, Alberta and Edmonton, Alberta (metro population 1 million each) have riderships three times comparable U.S. cities. Most Canadian cities average 100-200 annual boardings per capita, whereas only the largest U.S. cities with subway and rapid transit systems (Chicago, San Francisco, Washington) exceed 100 boardings per capita. However, Canadian cities have significantly lower capital spending (less than US$60 per capita, versus US$50-$100 for American cities).[6] As a result of lower federal government funding, Canadian cities have to recover a much higher share of their costs out of operating revenues. This lack of federal funding may explain why there are only a few light rail systems in Canada, and why there are intense budget fights over building new ones.

Calgary


Despite the fact that Calgary, Alberta has a lower population density than the sprawling Denver, Colorado, the Calgary C-Train system is the most successful and busiest light rail system in North America, averaging about 250,000 riders per workday.[7][8]

The Calgary system was started in 1981 as the result of decisions to avoid building either downtown freeways or a heavy rail system. At that time, Calgary had less than half a million people and was considered too small for rail transit, but when it first opened the C-Train carried about 40,000 passengers per day. By 2007, Calgary was twice as big with 1 million people, but the C-Train system was over three times as long and carried over six times as many passengers.[7]

As of 2007 45% of the people working in downtown Calgary took transit to work, and the city's objective was to increase that to 60%.[9] The reason is that Calgary's downtown core covers only 1.4 square miles (3.6 km²), is isolated from the rest of the city by two rivers and a railway line, and was built with relatively narrow streets by North American standards. In the 1960s planners proposed a comprehensive freeway system to improve access, but this was rejected due to intense public opposition. However, subsequent growth exceeded expectations and by 2006, Calgary had become the second largest head office center in Canada, with 32,000,000 square feet (3,000,000 m²) of office space and 120,000 people working in the downtown core.[8] The downtown street system is at maximum capacity and has no room for traffic growth, but the city is confident it can add another 60,000 downtown workers in the next 20 years without making space for more cars.[9] Peak hour travel by LRT is equivalent to the capacity of about 16 free flow traffic lanes and allows the city to have fewer than 0.4 downtown parking places available per worker. [10]

Despite the downtown rush, 25% of the riders during rush hour are counterflow commuters - going out of downtown during the morning and into it during the afternoon. Many of these are students going to educational institutions, who receive deep discounts because they are filling seats that otherwise would be empty, and workers doing crosstown commutes to avoid the lack of freeways.[10] However, as of 2007, the C-Train is suffering growing pains. Because population growth has exceeded expectations and LRT ridership has outpaced population growth, Calgary has had trouble buying enough new LRT vehicles and hiring enough new drivers to meet the demand. As a result, many passengers experience lengthy train waits due to overcrowding.[7]

Despite funding problems resulting from lack of support from the provincial and federal governments, there are two extensions under construction. In November 2007, Calgary City Council approved another two further extensions on the two lines, to be completed by 2012. [11]

In addition, on November 20, 2007, Council gave final approval for the new West Leg of Calgary's LRT, which would be the system's fourth leg. Construction for the West leg will begin in 2009, with completion expected in 2012. When the new light rail vehicles ordered for the extension are finally delivered, the city will have a total of 223 LRVs.

Besides the ongoing program of extending all station platforms to 100 m to accommodate four-car trains, transportation planners have identified two additional lines to be constructed within the next 25 years. They are to the North-Central and South-East districts of the city. BRT service is in place along the future North-Central route, and is expected to begin on the South-East route within a year. Calgary will also one day have to place a tunnel in their downtown to accommodate one of these new lines, or a combination of lines, much like Edmonton has already done.

[edit] Edmonton

Main article: Edmonton Light Rail Transit

By contrast with Calgary, in Edmonton, Alberta the Edmonton Transit System built much of its light rail system underground, which meant that it could not afford to lay as much track to the suburbs. In addition, Edmonton's central business district has less office space and the single line which was built did not reach areas which housed many commuters to downtown. The system is successful by North American Standards, but not nearly as successful as Calgary's: it has attracted only a sixth of the ridership. Edmonton is building new extensions at grade that will extend to the TOD Century Park.

According to John Bakker, professor emeritus at the University of Alberta and one of the original designers of the system, going underground was a serious mistake. "Going into tunnels is about 10 times as expensive as going on the surface because you have to relocate utilities", said Mr Bakker. "Edmonton went into tunnels first, and it really bogged down everything thereafter, because they didn't have money". Edmonton's system is only 12 km long, while Calgary's light-rail system covered 42.1 km for about the same cost.[12] As a result, by 2006 Edmonton's LRT ridership was relatively static at 42,000 per day, while Calgary's was over 250,000 and growing rapidly. However, a 10 km South LRT expansion was underway, almost all of it at surface, and was expected to be completed by 2009.

[edit] Ottawa


The O-Train, Ottawa's light rail train system

In the 1970s and 1980s Ottawa, Ontario opted for grade-separated busways (the Ottawa Transitway) over light rail on the theory that buses were cheaper. In practice, the capital costs escalated from the original estimate of C$97 million to a final value of C$440 million, a cost overrun of about 450%.[13] This is nearly as high as Calgary's C-Train system, which had a capital cost of C$548 million, is about the same length, and carries more passengers.[14] Unfortunately, the Ottawa Transitway has reached capacity, with over 175 buses per hour on the downtown section, and has no cost-effective way to increase the volume.[15]

In 2001, to supplement its BRT system, Ottawa opened a diesel light rail pilot project, (the O-Train), which was relatively inexpensive to construct (C$21 million), due to its single-track route along a neglected freight-rail right of way and use of diesel multiple units (DMUs) to avoid the cost of building overhead lines along the tracks. O-Train has had some success in attracting new ridership to the system (a few thousand more riders), due to its connection of a south end big box shopping mall (South Keys), through Carleton University to the east-west busway (Ottawa Transitway) near the downtown core of the city.

Ottawa produced plans to expand both the Transitway and to open additional rail routes. The intention of the light rail project was to add to the system, not to replace the existing Transitway. However, in mid-December 2006, the new Ottawa city council voted to cancel the LRT system despite the fact that funding was already in place and contracts were already signed. As of 2008, lawsuits against the city of Ottawa over its canceled light rail system totaled over $280 million.[16] Examinations for discovery are expected to start in the fall, with the trial beginning in 2009. The trial is expected to be lengthy.[17]

Toronto

Main article: Transit City

LRT in Toronto is somewhat difficult to classify, since the city employs several forms of transit that may or may not be considered "light rail". The legacy streetcar system is still largely in place in the downtown area and is extensive in terms of routes and service intervals. Some lines even tie into integrated subway stations without the need for a transfer, and many traffic signals give priority to streetcars. However, the system as a whole is not normally considered true light rail because the mixed running with surface traffic slows travel considerably. Because of the differences in technology and speed, Canadian transportation planners do not usually classify historic streetcar systems as LRT, although they may technically qualify as such.[18] Two streetcar lines (Spadina/Harbourfront and St. Clair) have been recently rebuilt and come closer to meeting light rail standards as they run in dedicated rights-of-way. However, the largest vehicles used are articulated double streetcars which are much smaller than most LRT trains and these use trolley wheels rather than pantographs to collect electricity. Streetcar fares must also be paid upon boarding as with a local bus. Finally, the Scarborough RT was a demonstration project for elevated light rail that served as a prototype for Vancouver's SkyTrain and JFK's AirTrain). However, it does not meet the common definition of light rail either since it supplies electricity to the trains using two extra power rails (one at +300 VDC and the other at -300 VDC), uses linear induction motors acting on a metal plate between the tracks for propulsion, requires a fully grade-separated right-of-way, and has large stations that have much more in common with a heavy-rail metro. In Toronto it is usually mapped as part of the subway system.

All of the above is now under reconsideration as vehicles near the end of their lifespan and the future size and type of vehicle and trackway is contemplated. On March 16 2007, the Toronto Transit Commission announced a 120 Kilometre Light Rapid transit web throughout the city. This will be a 15 year project predicted to have 175 million-users by 2021. Funding has been announced at the municipal and provincial level, though not the federal. The plan has been released and can also be viewed at TransitCity.ca

Vancouver

In 1986, Vancouver, British Columbia built the Expo Line of the SkyTrain. It is the longest automated light rapid transit system in the world.[19] In addition to using driverless trains, it uses two energized power rails (one at +300 VDC and the other at -300 VDC) rather than overhead wires to supply electricity, making it unsafe to operate in the street or use level crossings. Since it is not conventional light rail it is often called an advanced light rapid transit or light metro system. The network, including the newer Millennium Line and extension, carries about 66 million passengers annually. Vancouver's two new lines under construction, the Canada Line and Evergreen Line, are planned to be grade-separated automated light transit and at-grade light rail, respectively. Additional extensions are planned for the Millennium Line mostly underground under Central Broadway to University of British Columbia. There is preliminary talk about extending the Expo Line (although its routing has not yet been determined).