Light rail plans take a hit in Phoenix
The contractors, sub-contractors, and elected officials hereabouts who truly love Sound Transit light rail will be disappointed to learn that the Phoenix light rail system — first cousin to ours — has been stopped in its present tracks by local officials unable to find sufficient revenues to pay for the proposed $273 million extension. The Phoenix system is paid for with local sales-tax receipts, which have plunged recently.
Phoenix officials announced that contracts would not be awarded, as previously planned, for a so-called Northwest Extension of the present "starter line" (yes, that is what they call the city-only line in Phoenix, as they do here), along another three miles of planned track. The starter line opened six years ago.
Consideration of the extension will be delayed at least 16 months, the Phoenix deputy city manager said. The decision announced Thursday (June 25) was the most recent signal that the planned 57-mile network is in trouble. Last month regional transportation groups agreed to push most light-rail projects back a year or two. A 12-mile track to Paradise Valley was pushed back to 2030, when taxing authority already will have expired. A South Tempe spur has run into technical and money problems and now local officials are discussing its replacement by a bus rapid transit system. The Scottsdale City Council last week voted to withdraw from the regional light-rail board, signaling its general unwillingness to extend the system in its direction. Extension of the system westward also has been delayed.
The Phoenix system, just as ours, no longer is that originally approved by voters; it, too, has removed promised stations and changed its routing. Phoenix Metro, which runs the system, says its overall goals remain the same although economic hard times have curtailed revenues.
U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, a strong supporter of financing for Sound Transit light rail, spoke to a meeting of Phoenix-area local and regional officials when the Phoenix system was under discussion, urging a go-ahead on a light-rail system there. She has not been able to bring money to the Phoenix system, however, because it relies soley on local sales-tax revenues and does not accept federal support.
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jun 25, 8:43 p.m. inappropriate
You are attempting to draw parallels with our system, but there aren't many. For starters, Seattle is vastly more transit dependent, both in current ridership and in how we'll handle growth. Second, transit is vastly more popular here. Third is the federal money issue. Fourth, once ST overcame its bad estimating process and leadership a decade ago, it's been very well run, and has delivered very close to budget. Fifth, Phoenix is a lower-capacity system (I don't recall numbers) that isn't that much different than BRT (mostly at-grade), while Seattle requires much higher capacity. Actually their last $400m of bids, for two tunnel segments of North Link, came in around $300m instead!
Posted Thu, Jun 25, 9:39 p.m. inappropriate
Thanks, mhayes, my thoughts exactly. Ted's one of a dwindling handful of people who still go out of their way to knock Sound Transit and Link light rail using, as you note, bogus comparisons and criticisms.
Light rail is opening to the public on the weekend of July 18th with free rides for all comers. I hope Ted would use that as an opportunity to visit Seattle again and try it out. I know other folks who also live in Arizona, and it's miserable there in July.
Posted Fri, Jun 26, 12:37 a.m. inappropriate
I've been a light rail skeptic on occasion (and still think they should have gone to Southcenter!), but tend to agree with mhays and R on this one. Apples and oranges.
Going forward, ST could encounter serious obstacles or experience great success, but I don't think that Phoenix's experience is particularly instructive as to which way it will play out.
Posted Fri, Jun 26, 5:40 a.m. inappropriate
The big difference, of course, between the Seattle and Phoenix systems is
that Sound Transit gets federal funding. Another big difference, however, is that Phoenix's topography is more suited to light rail than ours. Tunneling and water crossings are expensive and technically difficult.
The opening of our light rail system to the public---many years late---may be a pleasant occasion for those who attend. The basic fact remains, however: Light rail is less flexible (operating from a few fixed-point stations), far more expensive, and will carry fewer passengers to fewer destinations than would bus rapid transit or ordinary bus service. It also will take many years to put in place. Light rail has had disappointing ridership and financial shortfalls wherever it has been utilized. There are those who love it---especially those who benefit from its contracts. For others, it is a faith-based love.
I live in Seattle, by the way, and not in Phoenix. I spend time regularly in central Arizona and keep up with Arizona politics and events.
Posted Fri, Jun 26, 6:08 a.m. inappropriate
A few observations from Phoenix:
The post above is factually accurate in noting current delays and issues with system expansion, but what's left out is the success story of the current starter line. First, Phoenix's starter line is 20 miles long. That makes it one of the most ambitious starts ever for a rail transit system anywhere. Compared that number to recent light rail starts up in Houston (7.5 miles) and Minneapolis (12 miles). Even Washington DC's heavy rail Metro system began with less than five miles of track.
Since opening day in December 2008, ridership has consistently exceeded expectations. Even the naysayers who predicted "no one's gonna ride that thing in the summer heat" have been proven wrong. There's been a seasonal reduction in passenger loads, but not enough for ridership to ever dip below forecasts. The trains remain well utilized even as we enter triple-digit temperatures.
In many ways, Phoenix's experience is far more instructive for Seattle than one might think. Phoenix's system was approved after numerous unsuccessful attempts -- just like in Seattle. Phoenix's starter line relied on federal funds to match local tax revenues. The difficulty with the northwest extension lies mostly in a misguided decision by the City of Phoenix to try to build that segment quickly without the required processed for federal funding. Of course, that has proven a tactical mistake as sales tax revenues evaporate.
Finally, Phoenix's light rail is hardly BRT-like. It's comparable to almost all other current or planned light rail systems, including Seattle's. Rail opponents like to offer BRT as a rail alternative in the name of flexibility, but the argument ignores that no matter how much you dress up BRT with dedicated stations, pre-boarding ticket sales, special branding, etc., it's still just a bus. Buses, no matter how nice, don't handle high capacities well and don't draw discretionary riders the way rail can.
Phoenix made the right decision in building its 20-mile starter line, and Seattle has made the right decision in building its soon-to-open line. Enjoy your upcoming light rail grand opening.
Posted Fri, Jun 26, 9:35 a.m. inappropriate
There are routes in America and the rest of the world where buses -- some very nice and some less nice -- do provide "high capacities well," and do draw discretionary riders. Los Angeles Metro is showing that with its Metro Rapid bus lines on two dozen arterials, and its Orange line dedicated busway that amounts to an extension of the Red Line subway.
The issue at hand in most U.S. urban corridors is sufficient capacity and sufficient niceness to meet traveler demand, not gold-plated transit supply. In the vast majority of Puget Sound region's corridors, buses are sufficient. Case in point, Seattle's Sound Transit light rail starter line from downtown to the vicinity of the Airport will run in a Southeast Seattle corridor where frequent, high quality bus service would be sufficient to meet demand. That will be illustrated with ridership statistics soon. (100,000 riders lined up on opening day for free rides won't disprove my prediction!)
Light rail with 1% for art is nicer than buses, but the resources to run it and maintain it suck attention and money from all the other transit corridors where there isn't ever going to be light rail, plus the corridors that will be waiting many years for train stations to open.
Fortunately, in this decade so far, according to the U.S. Census American Community Survey, the Puget Sound's mostly bus system carries a larger proportion of commuters to work than Portland's transit system with its famous light rail network. Fortunately, the bus agencies in the region are striving toward higher quality bus service in various light and heavy configurations in more corridors than will ever get light rail.
By the will of the voters, however, Sound Transit gets an ample transit tax flow to keep plugging away on its rail network. This agency has been adept at selling its plan to voters, and then elected officials pile on by allocating additional Federal funds to ST that could have gone to more buses and traffic flow improvements like better signal timing to keep them moving on busy arterials.
The theory we are pursuing in Seattle is that a growing proportion of people will chose to live and work within walking/biking distance of light rail stations, and that this coming shift in consumer preference will be better for traffic and the environment. When folks are amazed that there are new parking restrictions near Seattle's light rail stations, I wonder if this theory is being adequately explained.
What's more disturbing is that the government-funded computer models running out to 2040 don't show this theory panning out, even with 125 miles of light rail.
I hope that readers of this note will challenge my interpretation of the computer models, take the time to download and examine the published modeling results hot off the press from Puget Sound Regional Council as of May 29, and provide its eagerly sought input on Transportation 2040 long-range plans by July 13.
Read all about it at http://www.psrc.org/publications/pubs/view/0609.htm#One
Posted Fri, Jun 26, 10:20 a.m. inappropriate
It's true that buses are an essential component. They provide the sort of door-to-door service for the masses that rail can't provide. And yes, Seattle does much better than Portland in terms of commuter mode share, due to the benefits of buses as well as our higher densities and more centralized jobs.
And I agree that BRT or HOV-based regular bus routes can do many things well. With few stops, high speeds, and excellent frequencies, routes can spiderweb into every neighborhood, then collect in one HOV route, where service along the collector route can be incredibly frequent.
But rail is an essential ingredient as well. (No time for that now.)
Posted Fri, Jun 26, 11:45 a.m. inappropriate
What I'm always trying to grasp is the essence of rail's essentialness as an ingredient in the urban transit mix that still always includes buses.
What makes rail essential?
What I've heard is:
1. Only way to get high people-moving capacity in a corridor.
2. Attracts far more riders than buses in congested corridors because its faster and more reliable.
3. Operating costs per passenger mile are lower.
4. Sparks transit-oriented development in a way bus routes can't.
5. Uses less energy and generates less greenhouse gas per passenger mile.
6. Motivates voters to support transit tax referendums even if they don't use transit themselves ... case in point, Prop 1 last November.
7. Some (many?) people, especially tourists and high income commuters, simply won't ride buses, but will ride rail.
8. Every great city must have rail ... Seattle can't be a great city like Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, BC without an urban passenger rail network.
Is that it? And will all these points be demonstrated once Link to the Airport is in operation? (Short answer, NO.)
Here's my other question -- will the impact of light rail running between Seattle's CBD and the Airport be sufficiently "transformational" that the waiting and paying for the construction of the various extensions will be tolerated with no reprecussions for the elected leaders who are taking credit? Will the enthusiasm we are seeing now in the countdown til opening of the Initial Segment continue in the years ahead? Until the August and November elections? We shall see, soon enough!
I'll do my part by riding Link every time I need to go where it goes. But not on opening weekend...I'm doing the arithmetic on how 100,000 revelers fit on trains that carry 400 to 600 people each, 4 minutes apart.
Posted Fri, Jun 26, 11:55 a.m. inappropriate
Rail's effect in 2010 is half the story. The bigger story is its effect in 2060. We should have several lines decades before then (including some not yet officially planned), and the city will have grown around them. Just like in Boston or Chicago today, these lines will have transitioned from "helpful additions" to "can't live without." People will think of their city and their commutes in terms of the rail map.
Whether short-term or long-term, much of the benefit is being able to accommodate population growth without building as much road capacity. Related to that, if people have fewer cars (as they tend to when transit improves), we can cut down on the astonishing amount of money we spend on parking in this city -- I mean building garages, surface lots, etc., whether at work, at the store, at home, at stadiums, at the airport...
Posted Fri, Jun 26, 1:36 p.m. inappropriate
Good points again, mhays. What Mr. Niles omits is that light rail trains run on new ROW, they provide additional capacity above and beyond that provided by the road/bus network already at work. The only way his BRT-buses-only vision works is to commandeer existing lanes from our current road and highway network. Likelihood of that happening, to any significant degree, is slim to none.
I'm sure there were highway critics complaining 45 years ago, when that first 8-mile segment of I-5 opened up, about how it was a "highway to nowhere" and "benefits so few motorists" etc. etc.
Failure of vision, we could call it.
Posted Fri, Jun 26, 1:48 p.m. inappropriate
Mhays,
I really hope you take the time to look at PSRC's computer models of 2040, and inform the agency if you think the models need modification, perhaps with a new or adjusted alternative to the five scenarios this planning agency has mapped out. 2040 is 60% of the way to the 2060 you envision.
You and others may find stimulating a paper I co-authored with Dick Nelson earlier in the decade describing why transportation planning for 50 years in the future is difficult.
http://www.bettertransport.info/NilesNelson2001.pdf
Posted Fri, Jun 26, 2:25 p.m. inappropriate
Where those new train tracks go down Martin Luther King Jr Way would have made a good electric busway.
That won't happen, but it shows that if you spend enough money and endure difficult negotiations, you can find space within the surface grid for bus lanes ... and bike lanes too.
I don't think City of Seattle paid very much for peak period bus lanes in the Interbay leading to the Ballard Bridge.
By spending lots of money Sound Transit may be able to build train tracks on existing highway bridges (I-90) that removes right-of-way from our current network. A year of process remains on getting this deal done. Bus/HOV lanes on a new SR 520 bridge are scheduled to be in operation sooner than the floating train on I-90, but it could be a neck and neck race. Difficult negotiations are past and present.
Spend buckets and buckets of money and ST builds a subway train to Northgate. That's a done deal, except contractual damage payments to U of W for EMF radiation and vibration may be problematic. Difficult negotiations here are past and future.
Posted Sat, Jun 27, 9:55 a.m. inappropriate
Mr. Niles cites just about all the locations where existing lane capacity could be taken for bus/HOV lanes, areas where buses could conceivably be made to operate as high-capacity transit, similar to rail. Everywhere else he would have to build new ROW, much of it on elevated guideway or in tunnels, at pretty much the same costs as light rail transit. That's the only way you can get reliable high-capacity transit from downtown to the UW and from the UW to Northgate, for example. There are simply no major arterials in that corridor where buses could operate with anything like the speed, reliability, and capacity of light rail.
There will always be people who believe we can get public infrastructure on the cheap, Eymanism being what it is in some quarters. The real world is different.
Posted Sun, Jun 28, 6:54 p.m. inappropriate
Sound Transit's pre-Prop1 take of a million dollars per day in tax collections could have been used to buy more buses and build bus lanes all over the region in pinch points where buses are slowed now. Just a few of the pinch points in the I-5 corridor were documented by me and colleagues in 2001, using the pre-light-rail plans of State Government.
But all that money is now committed to the Sound Move UW-to-airport subway/streetcar/elevated combo train, so forget about it. Starting soon, we'll see how the Initial Segment part of the ten-year light rail plan works.
In the future, bus improvement would cover more geography and be a better use of the Prop 1 money than light rail extensions -- the track and station construction programmed to burn an additional million dollars per day in tax collections that came along with the Obama landslide.
Unfortunately, the Regional Council's computer models of 2040 with 125 miles of light rail show it doing zip to improve mobility overall. Most transit rides are still forecast to be on buses.
Oh wait, I forgot about the transformative vision --- everybody should move near a train station and ride the train. That might work.
Posted Sat, Jul 4, 2:34 p.m. inappropriate
Update on my post above about 100,000 people on Link Light Rail Opening Weekend Day: Sound Transit reports planning for 350 people each on its "high-capacity transportation" trains 7 minutes apart. Plus a lot of waiting in line, listening to entertainment.
http://www.soundtransit.org/Projects-and-Plans/Project-Updates/Link-Grand-Opening.xml