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,

Criticism of Light Rail in the United States

Criticisms of light rail in the U.S. 1/2/08

In many cases there has been considerable opposition to new light rail systems, particularly in the United States. Many of these arguments reflect the particular U.S. political conditions, including uses of government funding, considerations of development goals in urbanizing areas, and positions and power of various advocacy and lobbying groups, as well as physical issues, including the relatively low density (as compared to much of Europe and Asia) of many U.S. conurbations, and the extent and use of highway systems.[1] Arguments by opponents are often framed in terms of "how much automobile traffic can light rail replace," above all other considerations.

Arguments are generally along three lines:

* modern spatial arrangements are unsuited for fixed-line transit systems such as light rail
* light rail is too slow to compete with the automobile
* light rail does not generate a sufficient return on capital investment to make its construction worthwhile

Driving Forces (1998) ISBN 0815719647, by American political scientist and rail transit critic James Dunn, provides a good summary of these arguments.

Spatial mismatch


The low-density dispersal of residences and employment in modern American metropolitan areas prevents mass transit displacing a significant percentage of automobiles. In the United States, only in metropolitan New York City is transit's share of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) higher than five percent, and in most metropolitan areas, transit carries less than one percent of travel. These percentages are considerably higher for suburb-to-central business district (CBD) commutes, but these trips have dramatically declined as a percentage of VMT since the 1970s.[verification needed]

While the spatial mismatch argument is largely correct for the Midwest (except Chicago), the South, and Southwest, it never was relevant to San Francisco, the nation's second-densest city after New York, and is increasingly not the case in places such as Los Angeles and San Diego. As West Coast cities, in particular, run into their coastal mountain ranges, many have developed polycentric spatial arrangements with a relatively small number of nodes. For most of its history, transit has best served commuters from suburbs to a single CBD. However, this is no longer necessarily the case; in Sacramento and San Diego, particularly, construction of light rail networks that incorporate both circumferential (suburb-to-suburb) and radial (suburb-to-CBD) lines have produced surprisingly high increases in passenger-miles (Thompson and Matoff, 2003).

Nevertheless, with such a small market share, even a doubling of transit ridership would have virtually no impact on traffic congestion.[verification needed] Smart growth advocates and New Urbanists acknowledge this and call for areas near proposed light rail stations to be developed as relatively high-density "transit villages," minimizing the need for automobile usage while increasing the housing stock. In many areas, NIMBYism is an obstacle to such development.

Travel time

Though modern light rail systems have higher average speeds than their older counterparts, LRT is, on average, about half as fast as automobile transit.[2] When taking into account the additional time required to reach the rail system, this is even slower. These averaged figures do not account for the degree of congestion, however; light rail on its own right-of-way is considerably less vulnerable to gridlock than automobiles or buses operating in mixed traffic. For example, Los Angeles' heavily-used Blue Line (the United States' second busiest light rail line) which is slower than automobiles at off-peak times but during rush hour, is very competitive with automobiles traveling along the extremely congested Long Beach Freeway (I-710) it parallels. The Harbor Transitway busway nearby is faster than either mode, due to fewer stops, but construction of its dedicated right-of-way was expensive given its very low ridership. Light rail makes sense in areas that suffer from sufficient congestion to make it competitive with cars, and along routes that are too heavily-traveled for even bus rapid transit systems.

Return on investment and cost-competitiveness for LRT vs. highway

Cost-effectiveness and comparative capacity are covered in the main light rail article. This section will attempt to provide context to argumentation in the United States political climate based on those facts.

Pro-LRT arguments made regarding cost and return on investment

* Seemingly high construction costs for LRT systems are not taken in proper context as costs of purchasing and maintaining vehicles necessary for a highway system are hidden since private owners pay these expenses.[original research?]

* Light rail provides savings to the consumer. The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) has shown that those who take mass transit in place of owning cars spend a far smaller fraction of their total income on transit costs[1]. Additionally, the money spent stays local, which is not true of gasoline costs nor automotive insurance payments to nonlocal companies. Approximately 18% of household expenditures are spent on vehicles and transit fares. Residents of cities with well developed rail systems spend an average of $2,808 on vehicles and transit, compared with $3,332 in bus only cities.[3]

* Light rail offers many indirect benefits:

o Rail-triggered transit-oriented development tends to increase local property values, and often result in neighborhood improvements such as urban redevelopment, historic preservation, and improved pedestrian conditions[4] while highways can negatively affect community cohesion
o Rail-based transit can lead to higher land density and clustering in rail-oriented cities providing agglomeration benefits in reducing the costs of providing public services and increasing productivity due to improved accessibility and network effects.[5]

* Light rail offers benefits over bus alternatives:

o Since rail travel is usually more comfortable, faster (particularly if grade separated) and better integrated into the urban landscape than travel by bus, more people are willing to ride. A survey in Vancouver, Canada found that 42% of Skytrain (rail) riders would otherwise drive, compared with 25-35% of bus riders. However, this preference for rail over bus is disputed[6][7]

* Future rail systems may have higher utility than present ones due to the network effect, wherein the addition of one node to a network increases the utility of other nodes. The experiences of Sacramento, California and Portland, Oregon have demonstrated this phenomenon: in those places, light rail became more competitive with highways as more of the network was put in place. To quote Calgary Transit: "Since the inception of LRT service, each new LRT line or LRT extension has produced a 15 to 20 percent increase in corridor ridership, resulting from the diversion of previous auto drivers to transit.

* Rail transit cities have significantly lower per capita traffic death rates. Cities with large rail transit systems average 7.5 traffic fatalities per 100,000 population, ones with small rail systems average 9.9, and bus only cities average 11.7. If cities with large rail systems had the same fatality rate as bus only cities, the United States would have 251 more annual traffic deaths.[8] However, it is not certain that such safety benefits would accrue from light rail in particular. Prominent light rail critic Wendell Cox argues that light rail is less safe than bus, subway, and even automobile-based transit.[9]

* Light rail is more environmentally friendly than highway/road alternatives since rail travel consumes about a fifth as much energy per passenger-mile as automobile travel, due to higher mechanical efficiency and load factors.[8] It should be noted that this assumes full capcity, whereas in practical use, since light rail vehicles run far from capacity, that light rail actually consumes 14 percent more energy per passenger kilometer than automobiles in practice.[10]

Anti-LRT arguments made regarding cost and return on investment

* United States light rail systems have a consistent history of low ridership[11] translating to low per-person cost-effectiveness.

* While the bulk of operating costs for highway systems are paid for by its users, subsidy to public transport is more than 70 percent, representing a continuing cost to taxpayers.[12]

* Express buses can carry the capacity of light rail systems, and can do so at 1/7th the cost without the large startup investment required for light rail.[12]

* Light rail systems have high construction and maintenance costs, nearly seven times the cost per person kilometer of an urban motorway lane.[12]

* Light rail is a waste of transit money, producing only 3.6 percent of transit trips yet consuming 12 percent of transit capital funds, taking away needed money from other transit modes.[13]

* Since many light rail riders are merely transplanted bus riders, ridership data overstates how many cars are taken off the road by light rail. In general, half or more of light rail riders formerly rode bus services that were replaced by the rail service.[14]

* Most people in the United States live in places where cars are owned out of necessity. As such, automotive ownership expenses are already sunk costs, to be incurred even if primarily taking mass transit.[original research?][citation needed]

* Light rail systems are not being built for cost-effective reasons. Prominent critic Wendell Cox argues that worry over traffic congestion, boosts in civic pride, and the availability of federal funding impel light rail construction, while the first has not been shown to be remedied by light rail, the second isn't pragmatic, and the benefits of the third are irrespective of what the funds are spent on.References

1. ^ Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development in the United States--Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects,Transportation Research Board, http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=4060
2. ^ Light Rail Schedule Speed – Faster Than Bus, Competitive With Car
3. ^ BLS (2003). Consumer Expenditure Survey. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved on 2006-10-13.
4. ^ Eppli, Mark; Charles C. Tu, (2000). Valuing the New Urbanism: The Impact of New Urbanism on Prices of Single-Family Homes. Urban Land Institute.
5. ^ Litman, Todd (2003). Evaluating Criticism of Smart Growth. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved on 2006-10-13.
6. ^ Wendell Cox. Light Rail in the United States: Promise and Reality.
7. ^ Litman, Todd (2004). Rail Transit In America -- A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits. American Public Transport Association. Retrieved on 2006-10-13.
8. ^ a b { {cite book last = Kenworthy first = Jeffrey coauthors = Felix Laube year = 2000 title = Millennium Cities Database For Sustainable Transport publisher = Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy url = http://www.uitp.com/Project/index32.htm id = }}
9. ^ Wendell Cox. Light Rail in the United States: Promise and Reality.
10. ^ Template:Ciet web
11. ^ http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/351jldsx.asp The Search for the Holy Rail
12. ^ a b c Wendell Cox. Light Rail in the United States: Promise and Reality.
13. ^ GRDupdaterppi.indd
14. ^ Breach of Faith: Light Rail and Smart Growth in Charlotte
15. ^ Wendell Cox. Light Rail in the United States: Promise and Reality

About Pierce County Transit

12/31/07 Pierce Transit From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pierce Transit, in full "The Pierce County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation", is a mass transit agency serving Pierce County, the second most populous county in Washington state.

Pierce Transit was formed in 1979 when voters passed a 0.3 percent sales tax to fund public transportation. By authorizing this taxing authority, a municipal corporation (Pierce Transit) was formed under Chapter 36.57A of the Revised Code of Washington. In 2002, voters passed an additional 0.3 percent sales tax to replace revenue lost when Initiative 695 cut off the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax as a source of funding for public transportation.

Pierce Transit provides transportation services over a 450-square-mile (1,200 km²) area with an estimated population of 675,000. Pierce Transit's service area includes the cities and towns of Bonney Lake, Buckley, DuPont, Fife, Edgewood, Fircrest, Gig Harbor, Lakewood, Milton, Orting, Puyallup, Ruston, Steilacoom, Sumner, Tacoma and University Place, along with extensive unincorporated areas of Pierce County. Administration.

The agency is governed by a Board of Commissioners. The Board is composed of nine elected officials representing the City of Tacoma, Pierce County, Lakewood, University Place/Puyallup (a rotating appointment) and the smaller towns and cities of Pierce Transit's service area. The Chief Executive Officer is responsible for implementation of the policies legislated by the Board of Commissioners. In order to provide overall management for the Authority, six departments have been established: Executive; Transit Services; Policy, Planning, and Public Affairs; Capital Development; Human Resources; and Finance, Audit & Administrative Services.

Services
Pierce Transit provides 50 local bus routes, SHUTTLE (specialized transportation for people with disabilities), vanpool, ridematching and intercounty express service (provided in cooperation with Sound Transit and Intercity Transit) to Seattle, Sea-Tac Airport and Olympia. Pierce Transit's fixed-route system includes routes that operate on more than 900 miles (1,400 km) of city streets, county routes and state highways from Seattle through Tacoma and on to Olympia. Serving these areas is a fleet of over 250 buses, all wheelchair accessible and all running on compressed natural gas. Seven Transit Centers, over 3,000 bus stops, more than 200 covered bus shelters and 19 park-and-ride lots are provided for patrons. Pierce Transit's fixed-route service carried more than 13 million passengers in 2003. Pierce Transit's demand-response service, SHUTTLE, provides transportation for people certified eligible for the service because they are functionally unable to ride a fixed-route bus. Rides are organized on a subscription, group or call-in basis. More than 500,000 trips were provided in 2003, with nearly 70% of these trips provided by a private contractor.

Alternate Fuels
Pierce Transit's exploration of alternate fuel options began in 1986 when the agency launched a four-year demonstration project to test the feasibility of using compressed natural gas (CNG) as a fuel source for its bus fleet. CNG was chosen for its environmental benefits and safety record. Working with the Washington State Energy Office and Washington Natural Gas (now Puget Sound Energy), Pierce Transit converted two 1974 GMC buses to run on both diesel and CNG. When results were compared with six diesel buses of the same age, the agency found it cost less per mile in most cases to operate CNG buses. The engines also ran quieter, helping curb noise pollution in neighborhoods. In 1992, a fast-fill compressor station was built, capable of refueling three CNG buses simultaneously in less than 10 minutes; a second station has since been added. The agency bought the first low-floor buses in the state powered by CNG in February, 1999. By 2004, the agency's entire fleet had been converted to alternative fuels. While the fueling stations and their accompanying natural gas detectors and ventilation systems in the shop are expensive, fuel costs for CNG-powered buses can be much lower than for diesel-powered vehicles. In 2000, the CNG buses cost 7 cents per mile to fuel while diesel buses cost 13.6 cents per mile. Pierce Transit's clean-air efforts have garnered a number of awards from such groups as the American Lung Association, the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, American Gas Association and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Most recently, the U.S. Department of Energy honored Pierce Transit with a Clean Cities National Partner Award. The Department of Energy's Clean Cities awards promote the use of alternative, nonpolluting fuels. Pierce Transit was nominated for its award by the Puget Sound Clean Cities Coalition, a regional government/industry partnership led by the City of Seattle to promote the use of alternative fuels.

Cities served Tacoma,Puyallup,Lakewood,Gig Harbor,PurdyFort, Lewi,sOrting,South Hill,Bonney Lake,Sumner,Milton,Federal Way

• 
  

Snohomish County - About Community Transit

12/31/07Community Transit is the main public transit authority of Snohomish County, Washington. It operates buses within Snohomish County and to downtown Seattle, the University of Washington, and Seattle's Eastside suburbs in King County.

History
Community Transit service began October 4, 1976. The original member cities were Lynnwood, Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Woodway, Marysville, and Snohomish. Monroe and Lake Stevens joined the system in 1977, and two years later they were joined by Stanwood, Granite Falls, Mukilteo, and Sultan. Arlington joined in 1980, and was followed by Gold Bar, Index, and Startup in 1981. Oso and Darrington joined in 1982, Mill Creek joined in 1983. The most recent to join was Bothell, in 1992. The only city in the county that maintains its own transit system is Everett, the county seat (Everett Transit), though Community Transit does run some buses there. Transit Services A Community Transit bus located in Lynnwood, WA Community Transit currently operates local bus service, commuter bus service, vanpools, and paratransit services. Local Bus Service Community Transit currently operates 33 (as of 2007) routes in Snohomish County[1]. These routes, covering a service area of 3,367 square kilometers (1,300 square miles)[1] serve most communities within the county, with the exception of certain smaller communities on U.S. Highway 2 east of Gold Bar.

The vast majority of routes operate from the early morning hours until the evening, with reduced schedules on weekends and holidays. Certain routes, such as routes that travel to Boeing's Everett facility, operate only in a peak direction and/or only at certain times (to Boeing in the morning, away from Boeing in the afternoon), while other routes can have variations depending on the time of day. Usually, but not always, these 'alternate' routes have a distinct route number to help commuters differentiate (e.g., the 200/201/202 route, which takes one of three paths at different times of day). However, some routes, like the 280 route which serves Granite Falls, simply add on extra sections at various times of day without changing the route number. This is usually the case when the additional routing would not otherwise interfere with the normal route.

Commuter Bus Service

In addition to local service, Community Transit also operates 31 commuter routes in conjunction with Sound Transit[1]. Most of these routes operate in a peak-flow capacity, taking passengers from various communities to Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond, or the University District in the morning hours and bringing them back in the afternoon and evening. A few routes, under the direction of Sound Transit, provide round trip service throughout the day to major destinations in the county, such as Everett or Lynnwood. Most commuter buses serve one of the 20 park and ride lots within the county as well as limited stops within the communities they originate from.

Vanpool Services

Community Transit also provides vanpool service. These allow for more flexibility than traditional fixed-bus routes in that the riders--who also take turns driving the van--decide their own routing, thus allowing non-traditional commuters, including those without access to fixed routes or those whose transport needs are not met by fixed routes, to still utilize transit services. In exchange for a monthly fee that varies depending on mileage and size of van, Community Transit provides the vehicle, maintenance, fuel, insurance, and other miscellaneous needs. With 333 vans as of August 2007, the vanpool service is the third largest in the United States.

Paratransit Services

Community Transit also provides paratransit services for those who live within a three-quarters of a mile of a local fixed-bus route. This service, called DART or Dial-A-Ride Transit, provides those with conditions that prevent normal bus usage to reach their destinations

SWIFT BRT

Main article: SWIFT Bus Rapid Transit Community Transit is currently planning a Bus Rapid Transit line along Highway 99 between Aurora Village Transit Center and Everett. It is currently scheduled to open in 2008. The "Double Tall" Community Transit Alexander Dennis Enviro 500 Community Transit put a double-decker bus into service on August 1, 2007. An Enviro 500 manufactured by Alexander Dennis Limited, it will be used on commuter routes between Seattle and various points in Snohomish County during its first year in operation. Citizens Area Transit is one of three transit agencies that operate double-decker buses in the United States for non-sightseeing purposes, the others being Unitrans of Davis, California and Citizens Area Transit of Las Vegas, Nevada (which operates the "Deuce") [9]

Public Schools

Community Transit and Edmonds Woodway High School of Edmonds

have an arrangement for all students to take the public buses instead of the traditional school buses. Students receive free bus passes at the beginning of the year, and schools buses are only used for athletes and other extracurricular activities.