ARTICLE: About Light Rail in Oregon
Warren S.
by Bob Tiernan
1. Many mass-transportation experts have concluded that the north-south
light-rail is an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars. Regardless of expert
opinions and the facts set forth below, light-rail is being supported and
pushed by big special interest groups, who are profiting by its
construction.
2. The proposed north-south light-rail will cost more than $136 million a
mile to build for a total construction cost of $1.5 billion. The Federal
Highway Administration reports that costs for a six-lane freeway now run at
$31 million a mile--less than a quarter the cost of light-rail. The eastside
light-rail line only cost about $15 million a mile; the westside line more
than $30 million a mile--both a fraction of the cost of the proposed
north-south line. The cost to build the light-rail line comes to more than
$100,000 per rider!
3. Even light-rail advocates oppose this light-rail line. Association of
Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates, an outspoken supporter of light-rail, is
opposed to the north-south light-rail line. AORTA concluded "light-rail
costs are too high and ridership too low to support the line."
4. Light-rail doesn't reduce congestion! Studies have proven that when
light-rail is constructed, congestion actually increases. In fact, traffic
on the Banfield has increased 56 percent, while the population of Multnomah
County increased only 10 percent since 1983. Since light-rail operation
began (1986), Banfield traffic has increased by more than 40 percent while
light-rail ridership has grown only 27 percent.
5. National experts say light-rail may cause a drop in overall mass-transit
ridership. Studies on light-rail lines, including Portland's own light-rail
line, concluded that overall transit ridership declines after opening a
light-rail line. This is because bus riders who are forced to transfer from
buses to ride light-rail find it adds time to transit trips and are
discouraged from using transit.
6. Light-rail is too slow (about 20 mph). Express buses can be twice as fast
as light-rail. Car- and vanpools are faster than buses. People won't ride
light-rail because it is too slow and requires a trip by auto or bus to
reach light-rail.
7. Light-rail does not conserve energy. The Congressional Budget Office
concluded that: "light-rail transit...appears to rank significantly lower
than bus carpool, or vanpool in terms of its conservation potential...a new
bus trip typically means greater energy savings than a... light-rail trip."
8. Light-rail will not reduce pollution. Express buses and carpools cause
less pollution because they attract more people from autos and do not rely
on park & ride.
9. Light-rail costs 20 times more per passenger mile than a bus and carpool
lane. These lanes can carry as many as 10 times more passengers than are
forecasted for the north-south light-rail.
10. Enormous cost savings can be achieved by adding freeway bus/carpool
lanes. Light-rail lines must be built in both directions and extended as far
out as light-rail cars will travel, but new freeway lanes can be built where
needed for areas of high congestion and in one direction only.
11. More bus lines would be cheaper. Tri-Met could double the number of
buses now running for $46 million. Increased bus service could carry triple
the number of passengers than the north-south light-rail for one-thirtieth
of the cost.
12. Light-rail doesn't increase transit use. Metro's own studies, confirmed
by U.S. Census data, showed that transit use in the Banfield corridor
actually decreased slightly after light-rail was put in. Transit use for
work trips in the corridor was 11.2 percent in 1980 when a bus/carpool lane
operated on the Banfield but fell to 8.6 percent by 1990 after light-rail
replaced that lane.
13. Potential ridership estimates do not justify the light-rail line. New
jobs and growth are not being created in central Portland. The north-south
light-rail does not take passengers to growth areas where jobs are being
created.
14. Tri-Met is overspending money on mass transit. The Portland metro area
spends more than 70 percent of all transportation dollars (roads, buses,
light-rail) on Tri-Met. Tri-Met moves only 2.8 percent of all trips--2.4
percent on bus and 0.4 percent on light-rail. Less than 30 percent of the
total transportation funds is spent on all road (highway and freeway)
construction and maintenance in the Portland area, yet private vehicles
carry 97.2 percent of all trips.
15. Light-rail is being pushed by corporate special interest groups who are
profiting from its construction. Government bureaucrats want light-rail
because it means more government and higher taxes. Neutral experts have
concluded that light-rail is bad for transit, bad for congestion, and bad
for taxpayers, too.
ExpoRail
>Date: 9/3/2001
>Pork-barrel light-rail measure an incredible waste of money
>
>by Bob Tiernan
I did a little looking (quick search on Google) to find where this came from.
You left out a couple of things:
It was written -- in 1996, two years before Portland's Westside MAX opened --
by Republican state Rep. Bob Tiernan, District 24 in Lake Oswego. NIMBY
opposition to an earlier north-south plan was strong in wealthy Lake Oswego.
<portland.bcentral.com/portland/stories/1996/10/21/editorial4.html>
Warren, you've posted a FIVE-YEAR-OLD political op-ed as if it is current news.
Not good.
>1. Many mass-transportation experts have concluded that the north-south
>light-rail is an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars. Regardless of expert
>opinions and the facts set forth below, light-rail is being supported and
>pushed by big special interest groups, who are profiting by its
>construction.
And who might these unnamed "experts" be?
>2. The proposed north-south light-rail will cost more than $136 million a
>mile to build for a total construction cost of $1.5 billion.
The very first statistic of the article is wrong by over 100%. The cost is $350
million for 5.8 miles, $60.3 million per mile. <www.tri-met.org/interstatemax>
After finding the source of this article, I now realize it isn't even about the
current Interstate MAX project I've just cited.
>The Federal
>Highway Administration reports that costs for a six-lane freeway now run at
>$31 million a mile--less than a quarter the cost of light-rail.
Mis-represented fact: Not in urban areas, like where Interstate Max will be, as
we've documented in other recent posts.
>The eastside
>light-rail line only cost about $15 million a mile; the westside line more
>than $30 million a mile--both a fraction of the cost of the proposed
>north-south line. The cost to build the light-rail line comes to more than
>$100,000 per rider!
Portland MAX light rail now does around 70,000 boardings per day. It jumped
from 33,000 to 59,000 when the westside line opened in 1998, a gain of 28,000.
Suppose Interstate MAX only adds 20,000. Capital cost of $350 million
annualized is $28.35 million/year. Divided by, for round numbers, 6 million
annual boardings, is $4.73 per trip.
So where does your writer get $100,000 per rider????
>3. Even light-rail advocates oppose this light-rail line. Association of
>Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates, an outspoken supporter of light-rail, is
>opposed to the north-south light-rail line. AORTA concluded "light-rail
>costs are too high and ridership too low to support the line."
And the context of this quote is?
>4. Light-rail doesn't reduce congestion! Studies have proven that when
>light-rail is constructed, congestion actually increases. In fact, traffic
>on the Banfield has increased 56 percent, while the population of Multnomah
>County increased only 10 percent since 1983. Since light-rail operation
>began (1986), Banfield traffic has increased by more than 40 percent while
>light-rail ridership has grown only 27 percent.
And what would Banfield traffic be without light rail? And where would all of
those additional cars park in downtown Portland? This is also a five year
out-of-date quote.
>5. National experts say light-rail may cause a drop in overall mass-transit
>ridership.
These unnamed "experts" again? Other experts have documented that cities with
rail systems have also seen a greater increase in bus ridership than bus-only
cities, showing rail has increased total transit ridership, not just diverted
bus riders. And a lot of ridership growth has happened in the last five years.
>Studies on light-rail lines, including Portland's own light-rail
>line, concluded that overall transit ridership declines after opening a
>light-rail line. This is because bus riders who are forced to transfer from
>buses to ride light-rail find it adds time to transit trips and are
>discouraged from using transit.
Reference? See above.
>6. Light-rail is too slow (about 20 mph). Express buses can be twice as fast
>as light-rail.
That old "express bus" argument. But freeway express buses don't stop to serve
the corridor, only take people to the end.
>Car- and vanpools are faster than buses. People won't ride
>light-rail because it is too slow and requires a trip by auto or bus to
>reach light-rail.
People "won't ride" light rail, his theory says, but in reality they do
enthusiastically in city after city! Another dubious "fact".
>7. Light-rail does not conserve energy. The Congressional Budget Office
>concluded that: "light-rail transit...appears to rank significantly lower
>than bus carpool, or vanpool in terms of its conservation potential...a new
>bus trip typically means greater energy savings than a... light-rail trip."
I seriously doubt that 100 people in an LRV uses more energy per capita than
1.6 people in an SUV.
>8. Light-rail will not reduce pollution. Express buses and carpools cause
>less pollution because they attract more people from autos and do not rely
>on park & ride.
Light rail ridership is far greater than previous express bus ridership. And
how do the riders get to the buses -- we're not talking about home-pickup!
>9. Light-rail costs 20 times more per passenger mile than a bus and carpool
>lane. These lanes can carry as many as 10 times more passengers than are
>forecasted for the north-south light-rail.
That's an old myth pushed by bus advocates that a bus lane can carry much more
than light rail. As soon as stations are added, rail wins. L.A. light rail
carries multiples of what L.A.'s busiest bus line (Wilshire Rapid bus 720)
carries.
>10. Enormous cost savings can be achieved by adding freeway bus/carpool
>lanes. Light-rail lines must be built in both directions and extended as far
>out as light-rail cars will travel, but new freeway lanes can be built where
>needed for areas of high congestion and in one direction only.
Oh, people can't drive to the light rail line the same way they'd drive to the
freeway? And a light rail line, once built, has the capacity to continue to
carry more people, unlike the filled freeway lane.
>11. More bus lines would be cheaper. Tri-Met could double the number of
>buses now running for $46 million. Increased bus service could carry triple
>the number of passengers than the north-south light-rail for one-thirtieth
>of the cost.
Confusing vehicle with right-of-way. Where would these buses run? Jammed
streets? New lanes? As soon as new lanes and stops are involved, light rail
carries more people faster at lower operating cost.
>12. Light-rail doesn't increase transit use. Metro's own studies, confirmed
>by U.S. Census data, showed that transit use in the Banfield corridor
>actually decreased slightly after light-rail was put in. Transit use for
>work trips in the corridor was 11.2 percent in 1980 when a bus/carpool lane
>operated on the Banfield but fell to 8.6 percent by 1990 after light-rail
>replaced that lane.
What were the actual numbers, as opposed ot percentages? Portland has grown a
lot since MAX opened, especially in this corridor. And how does he define the
corridor?
>13. Potential ridership estimates do not justify the light-rail line. New
>jobs and growth are not being created in central Portland. The north-south
>light-rail does not take passengers to growth areas where jobs are being
>created.
One need only look at the map to see how Interstate MAX connects the large
residential population via existing MAX to thriving downtown Portland. He's
ignoring the larger MAX network.
>14. Tri-Met is overspending money on mass transit. The Portland metro area
>spends more than 70 percent of all transportation dollars (roads, buses,
>light-rail) on Tri-Met. Tri-Met moves only 2.8 percent of all trips--2.4
>percent on bus and 0.4 percent on light-rail. Less than 30 percent of the
>total transportation funds is spent on all road (highway and freeway)
>construction and maintenance in the Portland area, yet private vehicles
>carry 97.2 percent of all trips.
Tri-Met, and MAX particularly, is a backbone of the vision of Portland's future
that its economic success is largely based on.
>15. Light-rail is being pushed by corporate special interest groups who are
>profiting from its construction. Government bureaucrats want light-rail
>because it means more government and higher taxes. Neutral experts have
>concluded that light-rail is bad for transit, bad for congestion, and bad
>for taxpayers, too.
"Neutral experts" now? Try anti-rail ideologues.
Merritt Mullen
>> "Warren S." wstu...@mindspring.com
>> Date: 9/3/2001
>
>> 5. National experts say light-rail may cause a drop in overall mass-transit
>> ridership.
>
> These unnamed "experts" again? Other experts have documented that cities with
> rail systems have also seen a greater increase in bus ridership than bus-only
> cities, showing rail has increased total transit ridership, not just diverted
> bus riders. And a lot of ridership growth has happened in the last five years.
A couple of excerpts from the June 2000 NARP News (from APTA):
Transit ridership is growing faster than auto use.
Over the past three years, transit ridership rose 15%, while driving rose
8% (Nonetheless, highway spending is growing faster than transit spending).
Merritt
Warren S.
mass-transit
> >> ridership.
> >
> > These unnamed "experts" again? Other experts have documented that cities
with
> > rail systems have also seen a greater increase in bus ridership than
bus-only
> > cities, showing rail has increased total transit ridership, not just
diverted
> > bus riders. And a lot of ridership growth has happened in the last five
years.
>
> A couple of excerpts from the June 2000 NARP News (from APTA):
>
> Transit ridership is growing faster than auto use.
>
> Over the past three years, transit ridership rose 15%, while driving
rose
> 8% (Nonetheless, highway spending is growing faster than transit
spending).
Buses are almost all of this growth. Our bus systems in the U.S. are
getting better and better.
> Merritt
Warren
ExpoRail
>Date: 9/4/2001 wrote:
(snip)
>Buses are almost all of this growth. Our bus systems in the U.S. are
>getting better and better.
Just the opposite. Bus ridership is relatively flat, and rail ridership is a
growing % of transit trips in most cities with rail.
Darrell
Merritt Mullen
That's correct. See:
http://www.apta.com/stats/ridershp/passmile.htm
If you prefer "trips" instead of "passenger-miles", see
http://www.apta.com/stats/ridershp/trips.htm
As you can see on the first chart, although buses accounted for 46.3% of all
transit passenger-miles (including commuter rail) in 1999, in 1984 they had
54.8% of the passenger-miles. Passenger-mile figures for buses have been
fairly flat at about 20 billion over the past 15 years. The biggest growth
has been in light rail, followed by commuter rail.
Merritt
Richard Boenigk
> Pork-barrel light-rail measure an incredible waste of money
<snip>
> 13. Potential ridership estimates do not justify the light-rail line. New
> jobs and growth are not being created in central Portland. The north-south
> light-rail does not take passengers to growth areas where jobs are being
> created.
I'm not familiar with the Portland project, but I'd like to note that
this does nothing to discredit light rail in LA, where ridership
estimates _have_ justified construction. Once construction has been
completed, ridership has exceeded those estimates.