Light rail carries big cost, little benefit

[Chief]

This fellow has spoken at both of the Neighborhood Association light rail forums recently. He's worth listening to.

http://thecolumbian.com/

Wednesday, April 23, 2008
By Michael Ennis

Based on the performance of six West Coast light-rail systems, Vancouver policymakers can reasonably expect that a light-rail system here would require a large public subsidy, would not reduce traffic congestion, and would be extraordinarily inefficient when compared to existing transit across the bridge.

Ask Clark County residents what they think about light rail, and they will likely point to the 1995 vote in which nearly 70 percent rejected the concept. Ask some policymakers in Clark County what they think and they are likely to suggest light rail is the savior to Vancouver’s transportation issues.

Why do some policymakers and voters disagree?

Supporters claim a lot has changed in the 10 years. Vancouver’s population has nearly doubled and that growth is expected to continue. Bridge traffic is worse and congestion is spilling across the river. Now, as officials explore a new bridge across the Columbia River, light rail is pushed as a supposed solution, again.

Based on light rail’s rapid growth across the country, this should not be a surprise. In 1980 there were only nine light-rail systems; today, there are 29. But comparing the six systems on the West Coast shows that spending on light rail results in a very large gap between public costs and public benefits.

Light rail does not reduce traffic congestion. In 2005, light-rail systems on the West Coast served only about 2 percent of the work force in their service areas. On average, these systems only remove between 0.39 percent and 1.1 percent of cars from the roadway.

Light rail is expensive and it requires significant public assistance. On average, West Coast light-rail systems need taxpayer subsidies to pay for 73 percent of operations and 100 percent of capital improvements every year.

Light rail is far less efficient than a bus system. Attracting a new rider to light rail costs 16 to 47 times as much as attracting a new rider to a traditional bus system. And when accounting for passenger demand, West Coast light rail is 12 percent more expensive to operate than bus service.

A large gap

Comparing the six West Coast light-rail systems helps residents in Clark County understand what they could expect from spending on a similar system here. Based on preliminary cost and ridership estimates, light rail across the Columbia River would also result in a large gap between public costs and public benefits.

According to the Regional Transportation Council, the bridge carries about 3,300 transit trips per day. That means only 2.4 percent of all trips that cross the bridge are on public transit. Adding light rail to the bridge would increase costs by about $1.17 billion. This means local officials want to spend 40 percent more in order to serve 2.4 percent of total bridge crossings.

But Columbia River Crossing, or CRC, officials estimate transit demand across the bridge would increase with light rail, because riders will not experience congestion like bus riders do today. As a result, CRC projects light rail would boost transit crossings to about 20,000 trips per day by 2030.

Generally, the Federal Transit Administration presumes there is no modal preference for trains over buses when travel time, comfort level, and other factors are the same. So there is likely some validity to the CRC logic that congestion is somehow suppressing transit demand across the bridge. However, a 506 percent increase in transit demand is an unrealistic estimate of light rail’s influence on attracting new passengers.

Nevertheless, assuming the CRC is correct and accounting for population and growth in bridge crossings over the next 20 years, light rail’s mode share would still only rise to about 9.8 percent of daily crossings.

Despite what light-rail advocates claim, deliberately increasing costs by 40 percent to serve between 2.4 percent and 9.8 percent of all bridge crossings establishes a very large gap between public costs and public benefits.

Transportation taxes should be used more efficiently and tied to congestion relief.

MICHAEL ENNIS is the director of the Center for Transportation at the Washington Policy Center, a nonprofit, public policy think tank based in Seattle. He is the author of “The Facts on Light Rail: A Comparative Analysis of Light-Rail Systems in Six West Coast Cities,” available at
www.washingtonpolicy.org.

[sensibilist]

Here's the direct link(s) to both the article in the "Columbian" as well as the report itself:

http://www.columbian.com/opinion/news/2008/04/04232008_Local-view-Light-rail-carries-big-cost-little-benefit.cfm


Here's a direct link to his report:

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/transportation/policybrief/08_Ennis_LightRail.pdf

[Chief]

Thanks for that fix Eddie, I dunno what happened to that link of mine...going to fast for my own good I guess...Good to hear from ya!

mrgrn

[Waterbuffalo]

Ahh Fast Eddie is back! :-)

Nice to see you again Sensibilist.

[sensibilist]

Nice to be seen. Thanks.

I've heard reliable rumor that the DEIS has already been circulating around, except to the public, even though it is exactly that...a public document.

Further, the City of Vancouver has in it's budget a hugh slew of money (I'm ashamed to tell you the amount) for "public outreach" firms such as J.D. White http://www.jdwhite.com/ Normandeau Associates, Inc http://www.normandeau.com/ and Jeanne Lawson Associates http://www.jlainvolve.com/ to pay taxpayer money to promote their pro light rail views, which is arguably against the law. Just as they hire a lobbyist with taxpayer money to push an anti-citizen agenda.

Simply put, the city is using taxpayer monies to peddle its pre determined/destined agenda with propaganda http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda

[Chief]

I'm sure they have been circulating it, because they are trying to avoid having their assess handed to them by the Federal Government if they are sticking to the approach they took in the first place.

I've heard that the DEIS has grown to over 1000 pages as well Ed, so who knows what is in there now?

Doug Ficco was not in a bad mood for no reason when he appeared at that Q&A session 2 weeks ago.

As for the PR firms, I'm not surprized that they are tring something like that, and they are likely waiting to pull the trigger when the DEIS is published, because the mandatory 60 day public comment period starts immediately once it is published.

But what if it is published, and a month later the Federal Transit Administration rejects this version too?? Then what?? Remember all those timetables they talked about at the last few Task Force meetings?? They are rapidly running out of time to get a "Smart Starts" aplication in for the 2009 funding cycle.

Keep up posted Ed...your sources have proven to be invaluable before and there is a lot going on behind the scenes.

OBTW...the CRCP office has been checking Clarkblog daily...

8)

[sensibilist]

The feds are where this will be stopped, plain and simple. Why is it that no proposal for light rail on 205 has ever been addressed, even though it's cabable of being fitted for it? Further, this is where the population density is, is it not?

Take a look at this article again...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In "The Columbian" on April 16, 2008 by Mike Anderson here and especially note the dollar amounts per mile of light rail at 53 Million per mile:

http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/04/04162008_Streetcars-in-store-Some-say-transportation-from-the-past-could-help-Hazel-Dell-in-the-future.cfm//


5280 feet= 1 mile= 63,360 inches...hence

$53,000,000 per mile divided by 63,360 inches= $836.49 per running inch!!!

Reminder: This is just capital costs and do not take into account operations and maintenance.
__________________


They're going to have to circle their wagons real tight I think, which make them extremely vunerable......I'm thinkin' it's about time for the war paint, eh?

[Waterbuffalo]

Ed: since I have attended those meetings in Both oregon and Washington about the CRCP I can say that the I-205 isn't a part of the project from the very start because they were focusing on a small area to fix. (roughly SR-500 to Columbia Way in Portland.) Repeated questions and discussions about why I-205 not being tolled, Light Rail on it and many other discussions have all come back that they're not a part of this project and its focus.

I-205 and LRT will probably be in another Joint thing like this current at some date in the future. RTC might be a part of that discussion as well.

Wasn't there a few threads on Clarkblog pertaining to this subject and why Light Rail won't work on that bridge?? (Memory is so faded...)

[Chief]

I have the feeling that they have come up with something that will pass muster with the Federal transit Administration, but I cannot believe that the Federal Government is going to allow these people to toll I-5 and I-205 in order to pay for light rail; and that is what it will take to pull this fantasy off.

The whole concept of "congestion pricing" for these permanent tolls scares the hell out of me because there is virtually no control over the system, and it's either pre-paid or tied into your bank account. Couple that with bonding schemes that are based on projected income from the tolls, and you can see how Loot Rail will be a wildfire if we allow it to cross the river.

[Waterbuffalo]

Congestion pricing? Where have I heard that one before?

Yeah, I highly suspect from your latter comments its going to take tolling both bridges to bring Light Rail or Bus Rapid Transit into Downtown Vancouver. Though Doug Ficco said in several or many times that there was some law or rule the feds have said that you can't toll the I-205 bridge if it isn't seeing some form of a benefit or is not in the project scope?

Chief, do you remember Doug's comments?? Going to guess we DID speculate and talk about this very subject. Think it was Karma that brought it up six months ago? (not sure, can't remember who it was..)

Could it be that it will be part MOS, Part Feds, Part State, Part Bond, Part local financing and tolls/congestion pricing that will have to be a package to pay for it all?

One thing I just thought of. What happens if some one from outside the area drives from Seattle and comes into this area wanting to get into Portland or Salem areas? What happens with them? (the traveling public..)

Second question. Could Gee Creek Rest areas be a good place to sell the transponders at? How about having some form of online account that one could pay into that's linked to a transponder? Or have a place near the bridge that will take cash 24/7 for transponder access??

[sensibilist]

We were in Tampa last year and they have a massive bridge that required tolls and it sounded as though is was easy to "refill" credits on the responder- online or via phone- and they would then update your responder with the new credits. Probably a system similar to that used on the new Tacoma Narrows bridge.

In any event, it was slick.

The mere mention of congestion pricing would be an indicator to me that any replacement offered will do little to alleviate/mitigate congestion, either now or in the future.

So we are being asked to spend billions for what?

[Chief]

That's the whole point Ed, "congestion pricing" is supposed to force people to cross at a different time, ergo congestion is reduced. You never have to add capacity to the system, other than the transit portion of our show.

I've long supported replacing the bridges for 2 reasons; 1) the lift spans and 2) the 100 year old telephone poles the Northbound span sits on.

I think a convincing case could be made to justify a replacement bridge, and what I have seen proposed fits in well with what is under construction for the Delta Park stretch of I-5 in Oregon, and the I-5 Improvements that have been made in Washington all the way to the I-205 split.

We can never remove all of the congestion on I-5, but we can manage it as well as possible. There will always be pinch points on I-5 through Portland, simply because of the route that was chosen. But those other jam points don't warrant ignoring what are serious problems on the Interstate Bridges.

I think we could build a replacement bridge for about $2 Billion. Take that $750 Million and put it toward the bridge, put a reasonable toll on the bridge that gives commuters a significant break, and remove the tolls when the bridge is paid off. Automatic tolling can save a fortune in payroll costs by replacing (unionized) toll booth workers, and it is reasonable to have those who use the new bridge pay for it via tolls.

But that is not what we are being asked to support; in fact, I'm not sure what we are being asked to support because the people who represent me on this, like Mayor Royce Pollard, are not telling us the whole truth.

Let me say up front that I am pleased with Steve Stuart's advocacy during his tenure on the Project. He has taken this project very seriously, and has often been the only dissenting voice on the Task Force, against Trimet, the City of Portland, and others. He has also been responsive to my questions, and is the only elected official I am aware of who has repeatedly asked for an accounting of the tax dollars Clark County is already paying to Oregon.

Light rail is a black hole that will suck in every available dollar if it is allowed to cross the river. If we allow tolls onto either crossing for the present project, those tolls will never end, and the proceeds will be used to expand light rail.

[Waterbuffalo]

"I've long supported replacing the bridges for 2 reasons; 1) the lift spans and 2) the 100 year old telephone poles the Northbound span sits on."

:-) thanks fisticuffs. I think this might be the best description I've heard on why one needs to replace the ageing bridge. (looked aging up.. But its spelt this way. weird.)

I'll agree with you. Steve has been up front, asking hard hell questions and dramatic at the last Task Force meeting from my memory. He's informative, intellectual and gets things done.

If he runs after this term expires, I'll probably vote for him again. Though I don't think he's going for a dynastic presence like some of the current or former commissioners have done.

[sensibilist]

Steve Stuart is running again and quickly declared his intentions by filing with the PDC shortly after his last race.

http://www.pdc.wa.gov/

As far as the bridge needing to be replaced then why was 50 mill spent 5-7 years ago to r/r a gear and do other maintenance? I would hardly think anyone would spend that type of money on an obselecent structure. Actual and effective age(s) are different. Besides, has anyone ever heard of any government agency actually taking down a usable structure?

I do know one thing-this light rail vision of theirs will never go anywhere.

[Chief]

Steve Stuart is running again and quickly declared his intentions by filing with the PDC shortly after his last race.

http://www.pdc.wa.gov/

As far as the bridge needing to be replaced then why was 50 mill spent 5-7 years ago to r/r a gear and do other maintenance? I would hardly think anyone would spend that type of money on an obselecent structure. Actual and effective age(s) are different. Besides, has anyone ever heard of any government agency actually taking down a usable structure?

I do know one thing-this light rail vision of theirs will never go anywhere.


The majority of the Maintenance of which you speak was the primarily the stripping of lead based paint, and repainting with less toxic paint. At the time it was done, it was because the bridge was peeling lead-based paint chips and dropping them into the Columbia River.

At that time, I recall the obsolescence was an issue, but the Columbia River Crossing Project has not even begun. The group that was studying what to do with the Delta Park stretch of I-5 was still dicking around too.

Other than re-painting and what amounts to routine and necessary upgrades to the electrical control systems that operated the lift spans, there has been little else done structurally to the spans, and nothing to the foundations of the piers.

The counterweight towers also retain all of the seismic hazards that ODOT identified in their latest survey document, and the lift spans stop all traffic dead every time they are opened.